Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Burial Law

Andrew Bennett: What progress is being made with the review of burial law.

Paul Goggins: We are completing an extensive consultation on the review of burial law, to which we have received more than 400 responses. We are considering them very carefully, and I hope to be able to announce detailed proposals early next year.

Andrew Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that it is more than four years since the Select Committee reported to the House on the very worrying state of cemeteries in many parts of the country, the lack of burial spaces for future interments and all the other problems that go with that? Will he bring a little more urgency to getting those problems sorted out?

Paul Goggins: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Environment, Transport, and Regional Affairs Committee; the report of the Sub-Committee that he chaired was an important piece of work. I was reading that report recently and noticed that, in the first section, it quoted a remark made by one of my predecessors, who stated that the issue was only exceeded in its importance by its difficulty. That predecessor was speaking in 1846 and he promptly rushed to legislation. It is important that we get the matter right. My hon. Friend is correct: we need to look at sensitive issues, such as the reuse of burial grounds. We are doing that carefully and I promise him that we shall introduce proposals, based on the consultations, as soon as possible.

Helen Southworth: My hon. Friend knows that the gaps in the current legislation can result in difficult and distressing cases that are hard to deal with, so will he pay particular attention during the review to requiring all burial authorities to give specific consideration to the needs of bereaved relatives? Families can be extremely distressed in those circumstances and it is important that all burial authorities give proper consideration and respect to their needs at such times.

Paul Goggins: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. It is true that sometimes I have to make some very difficult decisions on those matters. It is important that burial authorities have due regard to the needs of bereaved families at such a difficult and sensitive time. I want to see a commitment not only on that issue but on death certification, too, where it is vital that our public officials, who bear responsibility for those services, have due regard to the feelings of families.

Gun Crime

Gordon Prentice: How many drive-by shootings have been recorded in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Simpson: What action he is taking in response to the latest incidents of gun crime in Nottingham.

David Blunkett: This is the first opportunity that I and the House have had to send our condolences and our heartfelt sympathies to the family and friends of Danielle Beccan. All gun crime is a tragedy, but the death of a child is a bigger tragedy than any other.
	We do not collect statistics on drive-by shootings, but the statistics we do collect demonstrate a fall in the number of deaths from gun crime over the last three years, while there was a rapidly rising curve until 2001 in relation to the use of guns. That has been stabilised but it is still not acceptable. Although 77 per cent. of all gun crime ends up with no one being hurt and only 18 per cent. have some minor hurt, it is a tragedy for individuals, families and communities that even a small number of people are killed by guns. It is, therefore, beholden on all of us to ensure that we join together to find the solutions.

Gordon Prentice: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply; we all think of the victims of those senseless, drive-by shootings. Did he see the piece in The Observer yesterday, quoting the Manchester police, who say that the average life expectancy of those involved in gun crime in Manchester is 24? Who are the people supplying those guns? Surely we need to come down like a ton of bricks on those who supply illegal firearms. A sentence of five years is far too lenient.

David Blunkett: We can certainly debate whether five years as a minimum is unsatisfactory, but when the House debated the matter the average sentence for carrying a gun was 18 months. I think we all agreed that that was outrageous and that something should be done about it. I have to point out that, for the first time ever, we have raised the minimum sentence for death from use of a gun to a minimum starting point of 30 years. Every time we make proposals to the House on minimum sentences, there is conflict within, as well as between, parties about whether it is right for us to do so. The measures that we took last year, including those that we added to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, are a starting point, not an end point, for getting a grip on gun crime. Gun crime deaths amount to 8 per cent. of all murders in this country, and with the use of other weapons, including knives, we face another major challenge in protecting our communities.

Alan Simpson: I thank the Home Secretary for his kind words about Danielle Beccan, and I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), in whose constituency the family live. Will the Home Secretary, however, accept that the best way in which we can overcome the problem of guns on our streets is to stop the guns getting there in the first place and to look carefully at how those guns get through the current system? Will he also support the initiatives that are being taken by the local authority and local communities in Nottingham? One of our most urgent challenges is to give those in the communities the confidence to come forward with evidence about the holding of guns, without putting their own lives at risk. In that context, will he send support to the local communities and local authority in Nottingham for their initiative next Friday, when, with Danielle Beccan's family, people will stand together in Nottingham in an act of solidarity and defiance against the gun crime that we face?

David Blunkett: I shall be very happy indeed to send a message of support. The whole ministerial team will visit Nottingham and the east midlands on 4 and 5 November, and we have already agreed to meet representatives of the communities most affected. Indeed, in July, we gave £145,000 to the community of St. Ann's and Radford. I want to reinforce my tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is unable to raise these issues this afternoon because of his position on the Front Bench. We have also given £10,000 to Mothers Against Guns, which is playing a signal role in changing the culture and attitudes of local people. It is only through a combination of working within and from the community that the action plan that was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers a year ago can be made effective in Nottingham and throughout the country.

James Clappison: Surely the current position is entirely unacceptable. The stark fact is that gun crime has doubled in the past five years. In trying to tackle the supply of guns and to return to the position that originally obtained, will the Home Secretary consider imitation firearms, which, as the all-party group on gun crime found, have been converted on far too many occasions to fire live ammunition?

David Blunkett: Yes, we will. Although we were sceptical about the ability to differentiate between the different types of model gun, given that we had to avoid criminalising toy guns, it is an offence to carry a model gun in public, and the police have the power to intervene if they think that someone is carrying a gun. There is a lot more to do, and although everyone agrees that it would be a good idea to do it, they have not yet produced an acceptable definition of such a firearm, even though we have now taken the steps to which the House agreed last year—unanimously, if my memory serves me correct. It is clear from that that we did not disagree about banning the import and sale of such weapons, about the arrest of people carrying them and, of course, about dealing with Brocock guns. There is more to be done, but we have made progress in the past two years. We certainly needed to do so because, as we acknowledged, the carrying and, regrettably, the use of guns had grown exponentially from the mid-1990s onwards.

David Davis: I join the Home Secretary in offering condolences to the family and friends of Danielle Beccan and, indeed, the families and friends of the other people who have died in Nottingham in the past year.
	Although I understand the Home Secretary's response to the original question on the measurement of drive-by shootings, given the changing nature of shootings in Britain recently, it might be worth while to consider reclassifying or attempting to reclassify some of the measurements of such shootings. I understand only too well the problems that he faces with the definition of replica firearms—that needs to be dealt with—but may I take it from the tone of his comments that he does not agree with the director of the police standards unit, Paul Evans, who said that we have
	"a very, very small gun problem"?

David Blunkett: On the right hon. Gentleman's first observation, we obviously have a degree of common cause in trying to find a definition of replica and model guns that would work and that would be usable by the police.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the head of the police standards unit—who, having been the chief of police in Boston, has more experience of gun crime than I or anyone in this Chamber—was reflecting on the relative incidence of gun crime, the relative incidence of death from gun crime and the relative incidence of serious injury from gun crime. There is no difference between us in accepting that the carrying, use and availability of guns is totally unacceptable. The issue between us is only how we tackle that and whether we are able, working with the communities most affected, to ensure that we do not exaggerate the situation to the point where it looks as though there is nothing that can be done and that it is out of control. That would play into the hands of those who want to foster among young men, in particular, a view that they are invincible, that authority can do nothing and that the carrying and use of guns is somehow trendy and a fashion accessory that makes others proud of them. None of us wants that. That is why the head of the police standards unit merely made the observation that we should not exaggerate.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for that; no doubt, we will return to the issue in detail later today.
	I would not normally ask the Home Secretary an operational question, but there was a write-up in the weekend press that, three months ago, the National Crime Squad had ceased an intelligence operation in Nottingham that was aimed at the very gangs that have been causing some of these problems. As I said, I would not normally ask an operational question, but will he at least consider that decision? If it was necessary to withdraw an intelligence operation against the advice of the people involved in it, either there are not enough resources in the National Crime Squad or there was a strategic misjudgment in withdrawing it from one of the more dangerous cities in Britain.

David Blunkett: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts the question. We are always being harangued for not getting involved in operational decisions from the Dispatch Box. I take the point entirely and I would be very happy for him to talk to Bill Hughes, the head of the National Crime Squad, about its work and how it has been working with Operation Stealth, which has successfully begun the process of turning the situation round in Nottingham, as has the Sherwood initiative, which deals with the corollary of drug crime. I will happily arrange for such discussions; I appreciate the nature of the question.

John Denham: As yet, few, if any, cases of possession of firearms have found their way through the criminal justice system to have the new mandatory minimum sentence applied. That sentence was aimed particularly not so much at the hardened criminals who are determined to use guns but at the young men whom my right hon. Friend mentioned a few moments ago and who might casually carry guns and become involved in gun crime. In the period before that sentence is seen to bite, will he see whether more can be done to get across the fact that the sentence is now in the system and that the price to be paid for casually carrying guns is now very high?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend is correct. As we know, even with a speeded-up criminal justice system, the ability to take someone through the courts on this charge has not yet been possible. We have just initiated a poster campaign, but we probably need to think even more imaginatively about how we get the message across. Without making a party political point, I note that, when I was in Brixton at the beginning of August, I found that young men and women were very keen to work with us in developing their music as part of the message. If the music can become the message, the culture itself might change.

Mark Oaten: May I also express the sympathy of the Liberal Democrats to the family of Danielle?
	The Home Secretary is obviously aware that one of the problems with firearms is the number of them that come into the country illegally. With that in mind, will he look again at the structures that we have to police our ports and airports? Police officers, Customs officers and immigration officers are currently involved and there is quite a bit of overlapping work. Will he look again at the suggestion that has been made by a number of people to set up a dedicated national border force? Having that in place may actually make our borders more secure and, in doing so, may help to stop some of the traffic of guns into this country.

David Blunkett: The new Serious Organised Crime Agency will join together the police, Customs and the immigration service in a combined operation that will use the intelligence of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and be joined with the National Crime Squad. We will have a unified approach to tackle the organised smuggling of guns and thus the ability to address the problem. Part of the challenge that we face is those who are adapting existing weapons in this country, part is the use of the internet—we need to clamp down on the availability of such weapons through the internet—and part is the smuggling of weapons, sometimes from former Communist central and eastern European countries. When taken together, the measures that we have already enunciated can work. A border control force relates to a different issue, but if it were to be needed, it could be established as a subset of the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Fireworks

David Drew: What action is being taken to tackle the misuse of fireworks.

Hazel Blears: Over the past 18 months, we have introduced new legislation to control the supply, possession and use of fireworks. In addition to the existing criminal sanctions for committing those offences, earlier this month we extended the penalty notices for the disorder scheme to include three new firework offences. That provides the police with an alternative sanction, if they consider it appropriate, by punishing offenders immediately with on-the-spot fines.

David Drew: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) is a hero in Stroud, as he is in many other constituencies, for piloting his private Member's Bill. Of course, the legislation can only be as effective as the police choose to make it, so will she guarantee that she is informing the police and the ancillary services that the matter is a priority? Will she assure me that the police will deal with the problem, because although any improvement could only be a step in the right direction, we have a long way to go?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South is a hero, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is also something of a hero because he chairs the all-party fireworks group and has made a tremendous contribution. He is absolutely right that the misuse of fireworks causes misery and distress to thousands of people and their families throughout the country. I recently received a dossier from Liverpool police showing where fireworks are being used as explosives to blow up cars, rather than for fun and entertainment. I assure him that I am in discussion with the police and trading standards and environmental health officers because tackling such antisocial behaviour is a matter for not only the police, but all our agencies.

Sydney Chapman: In joining the hon. Member for Stroud in commending the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South that was successfully enacted, will the Minister examine the specific problem of the selling of illegal fireworks, which is a cause of concern despite the welcome tightening of the regulations? Will she take this opportunity to praise the British Fireworks Association for doing everything possible to co-operate towards ensuring that the new legislation will be effective?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important to tackle the issue on two fronts: first, the misuse of fireworks and, secondly, the import, supply and licensing of fireworks. We must follow fireworks that enter this country to ensure that they are not sold illegally and used for the activities that I outlined. I am in close contact with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to examine import, supply and licensing issues. We will continue to bear down on the misuse and illegal use of fireworks, which causes much anguish and distress to many people.

Bill Tynan: May I reinforce the point on the importation of fireworks? Some companies that bring fireworks into the country have no legal licensed storage areas. The fireworks go to farms and are then sold indiscriminately to white-van cowboys. Unless we deal with the individuals responsible for that, antisocial behaviour problems caused by fireworks will continue. Will my hon. Friend closely look into companies that are importing fireworks in such a manner and prevent that from happening in the future?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that such fireworks are properly tracked so that we know where they are going, and that they are not going to unlicensed suppliers. My hon. Friend has done a marvellous job in highlighting this issue. Before his involvement, there was a tendency to say that fireworks were harmless fun, but we all know from our postbags that that is not the case for people throughout this country. The misery and distress that has been caused is a matter of great concern to the House, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press particularly on licensing and supply, which are as important as bearing down on actual misuse on the streets.

John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend look again at the possibility of a universal licensing system for all firework outlets? Will she also consider giving greater powers to trading standards officers to revoke licences under particular circumstances? Although the Fireworks Act 2003, which was originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South, is extremely welcome, there could be loopholes in how it was redrafted as a Government Bill, which would leave the way open for unscrupulous traders.

Hazel Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I believe that the current legislation means that a robust set of measures are in place. Of course we will want to monitor the impact, and if it is necessary to have a further review, we will do that. The range of measures that we now have includes a curfew on the use of fireworks during night hours, banning the supply of category 3 fireworks, ensuring that category 4 fireworks can be used only by professionals and ensuring that there are offences covering the throwing of fireworks in the street and youngsters under 18 who have adult fireworks in their possession. That is a major package of measures, and together with the tracking and licensing, it will provide robust legislation to minimise the problems. We will keep the situation under review, but all Members will agree that the measures that have been taken in recent times should make a significant difference to the problems that have been caused.

Mentally Ill Prisoners

Anne McIntosh: What provision is made for the supervision of mentally ill individuals on probation on release from prison.

Fiona Mactaggart: Prisoners who are released into probation supervision in the community are subject to licence conditions. Every licensee will be allocated a designated probation supervising officer who is responsible for developing with the individual a supervision plan based on a careful assessment of risk and need. Where a prisoner who is released on licence is identified as having a mental health problem, arrangements will be made either by the prison prior to release or by the supervising probation officer for the individual to be referred for assessment and appropriate treatment through the primary care trust local to the area in which he or she will be residing.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's answer, but actually, it is the Under-Secretary, her hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who has been dealing with the specific case I have in mind, which is very serious. The gentleman in question, who is at serious risk of reoffending, is of no fixed abode and has no specific supervision over him. There is a multiplicity of agencies in charge, but not one in overall control. In the event that this young lad reoffends, who will take responsibility for that?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have spoken to my hon. Friend about the case to which the hon. Lady referred, in which a multi-agency public protection arrangement is in place. It tries to draw together a range of services—health and housing services, for example—in order to prevent offending. If the hon. Lady is saying that present arrangements are not satisfactory in terms of having a designated, fundamentally responsible person, she is right. That is precisely the reason for developing the National Offender Management Service, which will provide a named person to act as back-stop for any offender in such a position.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that a high proportion of prisoners released suffer from not just mental health problems but personality disorders. Many also have a dual diagnosis of alcohol and drug addition. Is proper monitoring taking place, and are arrangements in place to ensure that they have proper support for all their problems?

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. A survey conducted in 1997 found that nine out of 10 mentally disordered offenders had one of the conditions to which he referred. We need to draw together the provision available to support people in the community. That is why we are working on a strategy for mentally disordered offenders, which will build on the work done in prisons—substantial extra investment has been made in mental health care in prisons—and ensure that there is carry-through into the health service.

Nick Hawkins: As one whose constituency is not far from mine, the Minister might be aware that the northern end of my constituency is very close to Broadmoor hospital—indeed, schools in that part of the constituency all have Broadmoor alarms. The hon. Lady knows that recently, while on leave from Broadmoor to visit a hospital, a prisoner managed to escape the guards. That has caused considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country. People might have got the impression from her answers today that the system remains far too bureaucratic. Sadly, in far too many cases, there are far too many cooks spoiling the broth. Does she recognise how much concern there is about this matter and that, for far too long, there has been confusion in government and bureaucratic systems about mentally disordered offenders who pose a risk to the public? I appreciate that she is trying to do something about the problem, but it is urgent.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have a good record on dealing with escapes—the original focus of his question. Our fundamental aim is to try to prevent escapes and reduce their number, and we have achieved great successes in that respect. We have made substantial extra investment in mental health care for prisoners and people on release, which is beginning to show results. The impression that he is trying to spread is unfounded.

Chris Bryant: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), it is clear that many criminals who fall into that category are in danger of self-harm. In several incidents in south Wales, criminals on release have taken their own life. In developing new suggestions, will my hon. Friend the Minister work closely with the health service and the National Assembly for Wales to make sure there is follow-through in terms of ensuring support for vulnerable criminals in both England and Wales?

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right that the issue is important. I assure him that we have never done more than we are doing now, but I shall communicate his concerns to the Assembly. I agree that we should be able to create effective follow-through for all prisoners, wherever they are released.

Cheryl Gillan: But the Minister must know that there is a problem. The probation service is so overstretched that administrative workers are covering supervisors' jobs; parole and court reports are late, or so last-minute that risk assessment processes are compromised; and now probation officers are being prevented from making prison visits to offenders who are due for release. With 60,000 prisoners with mental health problems released from prison each year, does the hon. Lady really feel that the public are adequately protected?

Fiona Mactaggart: They are more adequately protected than they have ever been. The hon. Lady should look at the investment that has been put in, resulting in 1,800 additional probation offices and 300-plus extra staff dealing with the mental health of prisoners and released prisoners. We are making the investment that would not have been made had the Conservatives remained in charge.

Police Funding

Tony Lloyd: What steps he has taken to define objective measures of performance of policing to provide a standard base of funding for police forces in England.

Hazel Blears: Most grant funding is distributed by formula broadly to reflect the relative needs of forces, taking account of local resources; it is not based on performance. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities to ensure that the formula remains up to date and continues to take account of the requirements of modern-day policing.

Tony Lloyd: My constituents inevitably judge the local police force by things such as the police not answering the telephone or failing to respond to serious incidents in a timely fashion, but we need proper, objective standards to enable us to judge whether the Greater Manchester police force really deserves its place near the bottom of the ranking by most objective measures of policing, or whether the force is improving, as my hon. Friend the Minister has told me it is. In the end, Greater Manchester police's contention that they are underfunded would be better addressed if we could arrive at an objective view on whether their performance is good or bad compared with other inner-city police forces.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right, and I have a personal interest in making sure that GMP's performance is of the highest possible standard. I refer him to the police performance monitors, which were published about six weeks ago and provide an objective assessment of a police force's performances compared with that of similar forces. Although Greater Manchester still has a long way to go, it improved its performance in reducing crime, with burglary down by nearly 11 per cent., vehicle crime by 12 per cent. and robbery by 14 per cent., and there has been quite a good improvement in detections. Even though it is not doing anything as well as it ought to, its efforts to reduce the fear of crime have improved significantly. Police performance monitors provide the objective assessment that my hon. Friend is seeking.

Julian Brazier: Would not the best way of improving police performance and getting value from funding be to have less central control and paperwork so that police officers did not take several hours to perform a simple arrest and spend vast amounts of time filling forms with information, much of which is used for those ever increasing numbers of performance measures?

Hazel Blears: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard about fixed-penalty notices, which provide the police with a cost-effective way of disposing of crime. Twenty thousand such notices have been issued for disorder offences, and each one saves the police two and a half hours. That is just one example of the way in which we are freeing up police forces from the bureaucracy that has been imposed on them. A measure of central intervention and support is vital. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the performance of the forces engaged with the Police Standards Unit, he will see that their reductions in crime are greater than those for forces that are not so engaged, which shows that if the centre and the forces work together, we can reduce crime and protect our communities better.

Jon Trickett: Thanks to changes both to funding and to the formula, West Yorkshire police have received an increase of about £30 for every single citizen in west Yorkshire since 1997, for which we thank the Minister, and we have gone from being below average to above average. During the recess, I met residents of Girnhill lane in Featherstone, who said that their partnership with the police was becoming stronger every day. In Moorthorpe in my constituency, I heard how the recidivists—40 of the worst criminals in the area—were going to be tackled. Despite the increases, we are still underfunded relative to comparable authorities. Will the Minister look at making further increases in police funding over the coming period?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to hear such a great deal about the improvements in west Yorkshire, particularly the evidence of a stronger partnership between the police and local residents. However, I realise that this year's funding settlement impacted on the force's funding. We are keen to return to a system of floors and ceilings rather than a flat-rate increase if we can, and we are doing everything we can to maximise the settlement for the police. I am delighted, however, that the settlement is having such a good effect in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Prison Population

Desmond Swayne: What forecasts he has made for the prison population over the next 10 years.

Teddy Taylor: What recent assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the numbers of women in prison over the past 10 years.

Paul Goggins: The most recent prison population projections were published in September 2003. A new projection, which will take into account changes in sentencing trends and reforms to the criminal justice system, will be published later this year. Between 1993 and 2003, the female prison population increased by almost 200 per cent. The main reasons for this increase were a growth in the number of women sentenced for drugs offences and more severe sentencing.

Desmond Swayne: My experience over a number of years as a prison visitor leads me to believe that we must never underestimate the redemptive power of grace, but given the growth in violent crime, does the Minister agree that it is both expedient and prudent to continue to plan to accommodate a significant increase in the prison population?

Paul Goggins: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his important work as a prison visitor. I agree entirely that people who commit acts of violence should go to prison and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear earlier, should go to prison for longer than they have done in the past. That is why he announced at the end of September that, following some new investment, we would have more than 80,000 prison places available by 2006. We are also investing in the probation service so that we can deliver robust community sentences as an alternative to short-term prison sentences.

Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister share my concern and alarm about the massive increase in the number of women in prison? In the 10 years until the end of last year, the number was up by 173 per cent. from 1,500 to 4,299. The number is now up by 200 per cent. As this is the largest increase ever recorded in the history of the United Kingdom, should not he give us a more detailed explanation of why he thinks there has been such a huge increase, particularly as the number of men in prison increased by only 55 per cent. in the same period? Is he wise to say that the increase has to do with tougher sentencing, bearing in mind that there has been a more liberal attitude to letting women out of prison? Should not we have a detailed study to find out why things have gone so terribly wrong and what we can do about it?

Paul Goggins: The reason more women have gone to prison is that sentences have sent them there. My responsibility as the Minister for Correctional Services is to ensure that we have robust alternatives to prison sentences, where that is merited. I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the increase in the number of women going to prison, which is why, earlier this year, I launched the women's offending reduction programme, which looks at the causes of women's offending and seeks to reduce the number of women in prison. Last Friday there were fewer women in prison than there were on the same Friday the previous year, so we are making some progress. There are fewer women in prison this year than last year.

Helen Clark: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new prison in Peterborough, and will he condemn the Peterborough Conservative Association, which clearly does not understand the policy of its own party or its own shadow Home—

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady must please have a seat; she has finished. The Minister may mention the prison in his reply, but not the Conservative party.

Paul Goggins: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) in welcoming the opening this year of Bronzefield prison for women and, next year, of Peterborough prison for men and women. That is adding to the quality of the prison estate, which we need to invest in so that we have a prison estate that is fit for purpose.

Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that because of overcrowding, decisions have been made to house sex offenders in open conditions at Prescoed in my constituency? Within two days of a prisoner being allocated there the week before last, a very serious sex offender absconded. Does the Minister understand the deep anxiety in my constituency about the fact that, despite all the assurances that the prisoners would be low risk, one who absconded was deemed to be a danger to children? I ask the Minister to reverse the policy.

Paul Goggins: The decision to place a limited number of sex offenders who are coming to the end of their prison sentence in Prescoed prison was not the result of overcrowding but part of a planned programme under which suitable risk assessment takes place. Of course, I understand the anxiety that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of his constituents. I have written to him and to other local representatives to confirm that I will monitor the programme carefully. I will meet him and other representatives in the near future to discuss the issue.

Patrick Cormack: Should not whoever dreamed up the title "Minister for Correctional Services" be sentenced to detention to study the Queen's English?

Paul Goggins: I apologise to the House; it slipped out, as it occasionally does. I am the Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation.

Linda Gilroy: May I welcome the visit that my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Friends paid to Devon and Cornwall, and say how much I learned from accompanying him on the visit to Exeter prison about how to try to prevent the revolving-door syndrome? On women prisoners, has he discussed with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the very good provision in Plymouth that she visited? Trevi house is a model for preventing women from going into prison so that they may stay with young children and learn not only how to kick their drug habit, but how to become good mothers.

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for accompanying me on the visit to Exeter prison. It was indeed an encouraging visit, during which we saw many dedicated staff working very hard with prisoners on resettlement. I saw similar work at Dartmoor prison the following day. I pay tribute to all the staff involved and to the facility that she mentioned, which works with women who have a drug problem. Of course, such a problem needs to be dealt with and it sometimes can be dealt with outside prison. If women can keep contact with their children, so much the better. We are also seeking to develop a range of other alternatives, including the greater use of intermittent custody, which allows women to serve part of their sentence in prison during the week and to look after their children at other times. We have to be imaginative in trying to tackle this problem, but we are determined to do so.

Rifles

David Rendel: What restrictions there are on the firing of rifles in the open countryside.

Caroline Flint: It is an offence under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for a person to have a firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It is also an offence, subject to an exemption under the Act, for a person to possess a firearm without a current certificate.
	Under section 27(2) of the Firearms Act 1968, it is for the police to determine when issuing a firearms certificate what conditions should be applied. New shooters in particular are restricted to shooting on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area concerned. In all cases, the certificate holder must have permission from the landowner or occupier.

David Rendel: Given that the use of rifles in the open countryside for shooting foxes is likely to increase after the ban on hunting is introduced, what further steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that those involved in lamping are properly trained and competent to use rifles in those conditions properly, safely and effectively?

Caroline Flint: For anybody to have certain firearms, they have to be certificated, and local police decide the conditions on the basis of guidelines. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about access to open countryside and, as he will be aware, while the Firearms Act 1968 makes it an offence for a person to have a firearm in a public place, the Government believe that that does not prevent landowners and their invited guests from carrying out legitimate activities such as organised shoots and pest control on land to which there is a right of access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Countryside Agency has issued guidance to land managers on practical ways to manage public access, but action must be taken against those who break the law in circumstances such as those that he described, and they must be charged for doing so.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the Government's Bill on fox hunting gets through, will the use of rifles in the countryside increase or decrease?

Caroline Flint: Rifles are used in the countryside for a variety of activities, including target shooting and sports, which we support, and the running of land for farming and other pursuits. Of course, rifles have been used and will continue to be used for vermin control and the control of foxes. I cannot say how much that will increase, but such activities should be carried out in safety and in accordance with certification and licensing. We have just had a consultation on firearms legislation to which there were more than 4,000 replies. I look forward to seeing what they might say about certification, training and other issues of public safety.

Police Numbers

Paul Goodman: What recent representations he has received about police numbers; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: The Government have responded to the concerns of all hon. Members and their constituents by providing record police numbers. There are now nearly 140,000 police officers, an achievement of historic proportions and a record that we will continue to protect.

Paul Goodman: Our local police force in the High Wycombe and Marlow area has lost 18 officers to other forces in the past year, including 15 to the Met, where the starting salary is £6,000 higher. What does the Minister propose to do to stop that drift of officers from areas such as ours with very high housing costs to the Met and other better-paid forces?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that Thames Valley police has 339 more officers than it did when this Government came to power. That said, I recognise the issues about retention and housing costs, and I am delighted to say that the Government have introduced a £2,000 a year allowance for officers in such circumstances. We have also introduced the key worker housing scheme, which has assisted 175 people in the hon. Gentleman's area. This year, Thames Valley police received £4.7 million more than the sum granted by the formula. Given the key worker housing, the extra police officers and the extra grant, Thames Valley is doing significantly better under this Government than it ever did under the Conservative party.

James Plaskitt: Just four years ago, we had 899 officers in Warwickshire; now the figure is 1,011, which is a record. That increase was both necessary and welcome, but does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not only police numbers, but deployment and procedural reforms? Such changes were just as beneficial as the increase in numbers in Warwickshire.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome increased police numbers, but the issue is not only police numbers, but what the police do. He knows that we have funded, to the tune of £13 million, a range of work force modernisation pilots up and down the country, including in his area. Increasingly, civilian staff carry out functions such as custody, detention, investigation and escorting, freeing up more police officers to do front-line work. The public want to see the police out on the beat, patrolling and providing reassurance. We have also introduced nearly 4,000 community support officers, who are welcome in every community and who reassure the public.

Andrew Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that it was a mistake to allow special constables, who, unlike community support officers, have the power to arrest, to decline in number by more than 40 per cent. since 1997? Is it not extremely important to boost that vital area of policing, which reassures the public and is particularly cost-effective?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new Front-Bench position and look forward to many robust and lively debates on policing. It is interesting that he seeks to highlight the contribution of specials, who do a fantastic job policing our communities. Is that because he is reluctant to discuss police officers? Police numbers fell by 1,100 under the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), whereas the figure has increased by 12,500 under this Government. Many special constables have been recruited into the full-time force, where they have been well supported, and we are delighted to welcome them to the police. We have a big programme to increase the number of specials over forthcoming years.

Peter Pike: Is not the key factor not the increased police numbers—to which the Minister referred and which are welcome—community safety officers or neighbourhood wardens, but seeing increased numbers on the streets, which gives the public confidence and stops a mindless minority from destroying the lives of the majority? The situation has been reversed since the previous Government were in office.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that, like me and other hon. Members, he has seen the impact of increased police numbers, community support officers and our big push on tackling antisocial behaviour. The Together campaign has brought together local authorities and the police, and a record number—nearly 2,500—of antisocial behaviour orders have been issued. We are tackling, not tolerating, antisocial behaviour and constituents up and down the country are breathing a sigh of relief that someone is at long last taking notice of the issues that concern them. We are making a difference on the front line by reducing not only crime, but antisocial behaviour, which blights far too many people's lives.

Animal Rights Terrorism

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on animal rights terrorism.

David Blunkett: In July, we set out in the paper, "Animal Welfare—Human Rights: protecting people from animal rights extremists", additional measures that we intend to take and on which we want to legislate this winter. All hon. Members will join me in condemning the bestial extremists who desecrated a grave in Staffordshire 10 days ago and in sending our sympathy to the family. Our licensing laws in that area are the strongest in the world, but now we must take the strongest action to ensure that people can go about their business of increasing our safety and enhancing our health without their being intimidated.

Vincent Cable: Will these additional measures provide sufficient reassurance to an elderly couple in my constituency, the Halls, about whom I wrote to the Home Secretary 18 months ago, who continue to be terrorised by having acid thrown over their car, for example, despite having disposed of their Huntingdon shares some time ago? In particular, will the measures enable the police to close the SHAC—Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty—website, which specifically targets victims' homes?

David Blunkett: The new legislation will aim specifically to protect people such as the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We are amending the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, enhancing what used to be called the rattening laws in relation to attacks on people's homes, and ensuring that the police presence for those most affected can be stepped up. We now have a taskforce, under an assistant chief constable, which will prioritise and target resources, and we will ensure that it does its job properly. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents continue to feel harassed and intimidated, I ask him to get directly in touch with me again.

David Taylor: There is an animal-breeding establishment between the villages of Belton and Osgathorpe in my constituency, and we have seen activities by some protesters that would come within the remit of the question. Does the Home Secretary believe that the time will eventually come when it will be necessary to tackle animal rights terrorism through a single piece of legislation that strikes a balance between protecting those who legitimately try to persuade and coming down very heavily on those who use intimidation in a criminal and violent way?

David Blunkett: New legislation is required, as well as increasing the use of available powers and ensuring that the tactical co-ordination unit does its job better. The real issue for the coming Session, although obviously I cannot announce the Queen's Speech before she does—[Interruption.] I do my best to write my bit of it. We need to ensure that the proposed legislation gets on to the statute book as speedily as possible; if I can use a vehicle that has already been agreed, that would be the most sensible way of proceeding.

Jonathan Djanogly: How many more scientists, research workers and their suppliers will feel afraid to drive home from work, sit up at night awake with scared children waiting for their cars to be fire-bombed and their houses daubed, have their neighbours harassed and, now, have their dead relatives dug up from graveyards? That will continue until such time as the Government stop shilly-shallying about and get on with protecting the British research industry and its workers, which they have consistently failed to do.

David Blunkett: I do not mind our being taken to task when we are not doing anything, but that is a bit rich given that we have put a very large sum of money, including £3 million over the past three years for the Cambridgeshire constabulary, into dealing with the problem. In addition, we have set up the new co-ordinated tactical force, agreed to legislate this Session, increased arrests and charges from 109 to 179 last year and ensured that the police are aware that every right-thinking person wants us to get hold of these extremists and protect their victims. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has been doing a first-class job with me on this issue, has met those in the industry and victims, all of whom know that we are responding to and acting on their requirements, which we will continue to do.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for mentioning the desecration of the grave in Yoxall in my constituency. Is he aware, however, that that is just the culmination of more than five years of intimidation of not only the Hall family, who breed guinea pigs in my constituency for medical research, but other villagers in Newchurch and Yoxall and people who supply the Hall family with everything from newspapers to groceries? Is the Home Secretary convinced that the legislation that he outlined will put an end to this intimidation once and for all?

David Blunkett: With the very positive way in which the hon. Gentleman, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), has been dealing with this issue, I believe that it will. It has already cost the taxpayer an additional £250,000 for Staffordshire to be able to police the guinea pig farm. It has been, as has correctly been spelled out, a nightmare for everyone involved and for the local community, trying to help one another. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the dedication with which he has engaged with Ministers on the issue, and I believe that if we work together we can get this right.

Vulnerable Adults

Meg Munn: What plans he has to introduce an offence of (a) causing harm to and (b) exploitation of a vulnerable adult.

Fiona Mactaggart: In addition to offences that protect any adult from violence, sexual exploitation, theft and fraud, we are introducing further measures, including the familial homicide provisions in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, making it an offence to cause or allow the death of a vulnerable adult within the household, and the Mental Capacity Bill, which will make it an offence to ill-treat or neglect an adult who lacks capacity.

Meg Munn: I know that my hon. Friend is very familiar with the Longcare inquiry, which reported in 1998. I pay tribute to her work in that area, but that inquiry recommended that there should be a specific arrestable offence of causing harm to or exploitation of a vulnerable adult, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, to reflect the seriousness of such offences. May I urge her and the Government to consider again introducing the offence, six years after the report was written?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I am glad that she has taken over my former role in the all-party Voice group, which campaigns on these issues. The initiatives that we have taken to date, the new legislation that I described, the response following the consultation on the Mental Capacity Bill of increasing the penalty for such offences and the action that we have taken on care standards all need to bed down. Many of those steps will achieve the result that the Longcare inquiry identified as necessary, but if they do not, the Government will seriously consider introducing a further offence.

UK Forces (Iraq)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the deployment of UK forces in Iraq.
	There has been considerable speculation in the media over the past several days about the United Kingdom deploying forces outside its current area of operations in southern Iraq. The only relevant fact is that the UK military received a request for assistance on 10 October from the US military command in Iraq. Such requests and discussions between allies are routine. There is regular dialogue with our coalition allies and with the Iraqi security forces on all aspects of operations in Iraq. Requests for assistance form part of these exchanges.
	The disposition of coalition forces in Iraq has been adjusted regularly since the end of combat operations. The Danish contingent, for example, has taken on a greater share of responsibility within Multi-National Division (South-East), and the Japanese have deployed a 500-strong contingent into the Dutch area of operations.
	This request, if agreed, would involve UK land forces operating outside MND(S-E). It is worth bearing it in mind that Royal Air Force personnel have been operating over the whole of Iraq when required to support the coalition, and that some British personnel are based in Baghdad to support coalition operations. Other British land forces have previously operated outside MND(S-E).
	Iraqi security forces and coalition forces have recently been involved in intensified operations to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. Recent operations in Najaf, in Samarra and in North Babil have been undertaken as part of this effort. The political process is moving ahead as a result of these actions. This strategy is designed to increase pressure on and deal with those terrorists who are trying to prevent the rebuilding of Iraq, and who threaten the holding of free elections in January.
	The US request is for a limited number of UK ground forces to be made available to relieve US forces, to allow them in turn to participate in further operations elsewhere in Iraq, to maintain the continuing pressure on terrorists. The request does not ask for UK troops to be deployed to Baghdad city or to Falluja.
	We are obviously considering the request. A number of issues require assessment, including timing, the length of the potential operation, command and control arrangements, logistics and which forces would be the most appropriate to conduct the operation. None of these details has, as yet, been decided, and a UK reconnaissance team will deploy to the area tomorrow to provide further information, which will inform the chiefs of staff. I expect the final recommendation from the Chief of the Defence Staff by the middle of the week. All these factors require careful consideration. Once we have made a decision, I will inform the House in the usual way.
	Speculation over the weekend has focused on the suggestion that the request is somehow political, and that its timing is linked to elections. I want to make it clear that the request is a military request, and although it is linked to elections, it is linked not to the US elections but with efforts to create the best possible security situation in which to hold the Iraqi elections in January.
	A number of commentators have voiced concerns about UK forces coming under US command, and about the rules of engagement. If we agree to this request, the arrangements will ensure that UK forces have a specific task; they will be responsible for a particular area. There are no practical difficulties for UK forces operating alongside those from the US. Our forces are fully engaged with all our coalition partners at every level of planning. UK forces work daily alongside forces from Italy, Denmark and other nations, including Poland, the Netherlands and Japan. This is a matter of routine, and it is an effective and practical way of ensuring coherence in our own area and with the areas surrounding it.
	UK rules of engagement are more than adequate for tasks of the type envisaged; there is no need to adjust them. They will provide proper protection for UK forces, as they have during operations in volatile areas in our own sector, such as in al-Amarah.
	It is worth noting that as the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces develop, they will expand the areas under their independent control. As a result, coalition forces will need to become more able to act flexibly in support of the security forces as they, in turn, take on greater responsibility for the protection of Iraqi civilians and property.
	The Government remain totally committed to the holding of free elections in January, and to seeing a Government in Iraq who take their rightful place in the international community and who deliver prosperity and a new future for the Iraqi people. That should unite all parts of the House. It is right that the United Kingdom should do what it can to contribute to this fundamental strategic objective.

Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier today. I start by saying that the Opposition express again with great pride our highest confidence in, and admiration for, the professionalism, courage and skill of the men and women of the British armed forces serving in Iraq. We fully support the coalition as it seeks to bring democracy, stability and freedom to Iraq, and to preserve her territorial integrity; and we agree with the Secretary of State that we should do what we can to contribute to the fundamental strategic objective.
	I note the Secretary of State's assertion that no decisions have yet been finally taken, but may I, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, raise a number of important markers that we hope he will bear in mind? As he moves to a decision on this deployment, will he consider following? Although we of course instinctively wish to assist our American allies, does he not agree that such a deployment would leave a big capability gap in Multi-National Division (South-East)? Will he also confirm that as the British divisional reserve, the Black Watch has itself been heavily engaged in that role since its deployment in MND (S-E)?
	Given that the security situation could well deteriorate between now and the Iraqi elections, how does the Secretary of State plan to fill such an important capability gap, were this deployment to be made? Which Warrior-equipped battle group would undertake the role of the divisional reserve?
	I turn to the issue of British troops coming under United States' command. Britain and the United States are, after all, the closest of allies and we have always operated together, but will the Secretary of State spell out how he sees the important detail of the likely command and control arrangements? Such a deployment would represent a fundamental change. Despite the assurances given in his statement, does he not agree that the rules of engagement will need to be extremely robust to cope with the change of area and the possibility of support from the Americans, who may well be using almost entirely different ROE?
	Further and vitally, may we have the Secretary of State's absolute assurance that British troops, who are subject to the International Criminal Court—in contrast to their US counterparts, who are not—will not be compromised by any likely changes in the rules of engagement? The Secretary of State must answer that question and give the House an absolute assurance in this respect: what limit in time and manpower do the Government intend to assign to the deployment?
	Does the Secretary of State further agree that, if our troops are deployed, they should have the power to influence the decision-making process rather than just the responsibility to execute it? Is he accordingly satisfied as to the general scale and input of British views and expertise in current coalition counter-insurgency planning? What is the latest date on which the US has requested that our troops be deployed, and is it not leaving it all to rather short notice to send out a recce group tomorrow to report back with the Chief of the Defence Staff's decision due on Wednesday? Do not US forces have their own deployable reserves, or are they all already fully engaged? Will the Secretary of State explain to the House what he believes to be the operational justification for this proposed substantial change to our dispositions, and will he also explain the nature of the military advice that he has thus far been given?
	In view of what the Secretary of State has said, is he aware that Black Watch was told last Tuesday that it would not be coming home in November and that it would be redeployed? The Secretary of State needs to understand the feelings of the families, who will have watched with disbelief the unfolding shambles of the last few days and the Government's uncertainty and inability to make clear and prompt decisions on such vital matters.
	Finally, given recent events and the need to look to the future, does not the Secretary of State now accept that it is fundamentally irresponsible to cut four infantry battalions from the order of battle while the Army is so clearly and obviously under such great pressure?

Geoff Hoon: Again, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's unqualified support, and I hope that our American allies feel the same about the support that he appeared to give them—not least because he was quoted in The Sunday Times this Sunday as saying:
	"The concept of peacekeeping is one alien to our American friends."
	No doubt that will be read with great enthusiasm in the White House and, indeed, in the Pentagon. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of our American allies, this is about a request from a close ally to provide assistance in a very difficult operation in and around the important centres that the Americans have been attacking in recent days. That has been designed to ensure that the terrorists do not have the opportunity of killing more innocent Iraqis and more innocent citizens not only of the UK but of other countries as well. That is why it is so important that, if we accept the request, we take the necessary action. It is a coalition effort—one ally strongly supporting another.
	I shall try to deal with each of the hon. Gentleman's questions as best I can, given that a number of the issues necessarily fall to be decided by the chiefs of staff following appropriate information on the reconnaissance, to which I referred. It is important that we bear in mind the importance of assisting allies. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Black Watch has been heavily engaged, and if we take the decision to move it or other appropriate forces north we should cover the gaps in our capability. We are mindful of that.
	The rules of engagement that we provide for British troops are already extremely robust and I do not anticipate any difficulty with them, either in their own right or as far as any possible remote threat from the ICC is concerned. There will be no compromise on those rules of engagement. I was slightly surprised over the weekend to hear the hon. Gentleman apparently calling for their publication. No doubt he has since reflected on that, as no Government—certainly no Conservative Government—have contemplated that in the past. I draw his attention in that respect to his own remarks in Hansard when he was Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
	It is right that we do not set out the time limit in detail; it is a matter for military advice. The situation is similar for the scale and input of the UK's contribution. That equally applies to any latest date for deployment. I have set out the strong operational justification for the deployment. I do not believe, however, that it in any way affects our decision to take advantage of the withdrawal of four battalions from Northern Ireland, not least because this is an extra deployment that will require support, as hon. Members will recognise if they consider the decision calmly and rationally. The reason for readjusting our Army numbers to allow more support to logisticians and signallers is to permit this type of extra commitment. There is no shortage of infantry battalions, but there is an acute shortage of those who support the battalions.

Paul Keetch: I also thank the Secretary of State for notice of his statement and associate Liberal Democrats with the statements of support for United Kingdom forces in Iraq. Their performance in difficult conditions has been outstanding and we offer them our wholehearted support.
	The United States has 130,000 military personnel in Iraq. Is the proposed deployment of 650 extra British troops purely for operational reasons? If so, what are those reasons, and why specifically British forces and not other United States forces or other coalition forces used to working under US control? Are none of those available?
	Will the Secretary of State be specific about whether he has put the Black Watch under a warning to stay inside Iraq? Given that the Black Watch is the reserve force for the south, what other arrangements will be made to ensure that the effective capability of our force in the south will not be affected, especially at a time when the situation could deteriorate? What consideration has been given to the logistics implications, in particular for Warrior vehicles taken away from the south? Will he comment on the morale of the Black Watch, given that it was supposed to return to the UK in two weeks?
	We know that American military tactics in Iraq are different from our own. Indeed, General Jackson told the House of Commons Defence Committee just that two weeks ago. Will our forces have to work under a different military doctrine? If the deployment is required for convincing operational reasons, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not go against the advice of the chiefs of staff who are going out to Iraq tomorrow to make their assessments?

Geoff Hoon: I assure the House that this is a military request, as I made clear. It is made for clear operational reasons. The House will not be surprised to learn that there is a continuing effort against those parts of Iraq that have been harbouring and sheltering terrorists. It is necessary to deal with those areas, and some have already been dealt with. Samarra was an outstanding military operation and proved very successful. It is necessary to maintain such operations to ensure that free elections take place in January, so there is a clear operational justification.
	Incidentally, I cannot think of any other country that has worked more closely with US forces in recent times than Britain has. If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that those countries that have worked closely with the US should step forward, we would be the first in the queue. Attention will be paid to the provision of appropriate reserve forces and to necessary logistics.
	I, too, asked about morale in the Black Watch. I emphasise that the Black Watch is toured for six months, as all British Army units are, and it will be back in the UK before the completion of that tour of duty. I was concerned that members of the Black Watch had been told informally that they might expect to return before those six months had elapsed. Having raised the problem of morale, I was left in no doubt that if there was any question about their commitment to participate in such an operation, I could take my criticisms and put them somewhere else—I paraphrase.
	I do not accept that the deployment will involve a different military approach from the one that the UK adopts in its area of operations. As I said, if the operation is agreed to, the UK forces will be responsible for a discrete and particular area.

Frank Cook: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State call to mind the statements of his counterpart in the United States and indeed the President that the US forces can handle events in Iraq and that there should be no need for UK forces to get involved? My right hon. Friend will also have noted reports of American statements that the British attitude is one of institutionalised cowardice. Will he assure the House that he will bear both those elements in mind before coming to a decision—if he has not already done so?

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that no decision has been reached. I have set out the necessary steps before any such decision is made and, as I have already indicated, I will inform the House as soon as possible once the decision has been taken. I will certainly take his observations into account, but I wish to emphasise to him and to the House that we are part of a coalition and it is necessary for the participants to support each other. That is one of the factors that we will have to take into account before reaching any conclusion on that request.

Annabelle Ewing: As the MP for Perth, where the Black Watch has its regimental headquarters, I know that people in my constituency do not understand why it is operationally necessary to deploy the 600-plus battalion in the US zone, where there are already more than 130,000 US soldiers. What does the Secretary of State have to say to my constituents who are anxiously awaiting news about their loved ones, who are currently on their second tour of duty within a year and who are being stabbed in the back at home by the Government's plan to disband their historic regiment? My constituents want to know when the Black Watch will come home.

Geoff Hoon: I thought that I had explained. I recognise that the hon. Lady represents a number of people closely concerned with the Black Watch. The Black Watch would have expected to fulfil a six-month tour of duty, as is consistent with all Army units. However, informally, it might have expected to return after four months. Those expectations may not be satisfied if the request is agreed to on an early basis. I am sure that the Black Watch will have strong views about that and, as I said a few moments ago, I raised the question of morale in the Black Watch, given the efforts that it had made in the past. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows the Black Watch much better than I do, but the message that I got was that it was determined to carry through this operation should it be decided that it should participate.

Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a clear perception—among those, such as me, who opposed the war and those who supported it—that British troops have been more intelligently and sensitively led in Iraq than the US forces? At a time when two thirds of Iraqi civilians who are killed die at the hands of the coalition, is not this the time to review the conduct of the war rather than to place British forces, which have done a fantastic job in their own way, under the command of the US?

Geoff Hoon: I have had the privilege of visiting British troops in their area of operations on several occasions and I acknowledge the remarkable way in which they have gone about their job. It is sometimes unfair to compare them with US troops in and around Baghdad, who have faced a wholly different kind of threat from that faced by British troops in the south. There have been some real difficulties in our area of operation, such as in al-Amarah, which has been superbly handled but has put great strain on British troops. The insurgency and terrorist threats that the Americans are dealing with are of a different order from those that British troops have faced in, for example, Basra. It is important that we offer our assistance, as part of the coalition, when it is requested.

Andrew Murrison: Warminster in my constituency is currently the home of Lieutenant-Colonel Cowan and his battalion, who face a move to northern Iraq. What assessment has been made of the likely casualties that may be sustained in the event that that move takes place? Many of my constituents and their families will be deeply concerned.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. It is obviously a matter that will have to be taken into account, not only by the chiefs of staff as they reach their conclusion based on the reconnaissance that will take place tomorrow, but by Ministers, who will report to the House about it.

Iain Luke: I echo the sentiments that have been expressed about the redeployment of the Black Watch for the third time. I have no doubt that the regiment will serve admirably, as always; it will do a great job and morale will be as good as ever. As there is obviously a greater need for American troops to be involved in combat in the run-up to the elections in January, does my right hon. Friend foresee further requests from the Americans for more British troops to be redeployed outwith their area of operations? Are we not getting into a quagmire, given the mishandling of the war by America, which could lead us into a Vietnam situation?

Geoff Hoon: I have been at great pains to emphasise that this is a specific request for a particular purpose, arising from the need to deal with the terrorist threat in particular cities. Those cities are well known; Samarra has already been dealt with, and there has been negotiation to reduce the level of threat in places such as Sadr City. Incidentally, that has been of considerable benefit to British forces in the south of the country, as there seems—at any rate, for the moment—to be agreement among certain of the Shi'a militant forces to relax their efforts. That has obviously made life calmer, for the present, in the south. It is important to emphasise that this is about ensuring that the terrorist threat in particular parts of the so-called Sunni triangle is reduced, to allow the prospect of elections in January.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am one of those who continue to support the war and believe that it is right and that what is going on is right to bring democratic government to Iraq, but it is important that when the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box he clarifies the position exactly, to show that there will be a genuine and clear military advantage, that our troops, under the guidance of the chiefs of staff, will bring added value to the operations that are taking place in Iraq and that the rules of engagement are clear. I have one simple question about something that I feel he glossed over slightly and which was brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—the ICC. Will the Secretary of State explain how our different approach will not end up creating huge problems for us in the conduct of operations under the command, or associated command, of the Americans?

Geoff Hoon: This is not necessarily the occasion on which to debate the precise terms of the ICC statute. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have robust rules of engagement and that we have consistently supported our troops and will not allow them to be placed in jeopardy due to some legal failure, or indeed as a result of our signing up to a statute, which, among other things, requires that the ICC intervene only when the state—in this case, the United Kingdom—had not taken appropriate action. That is a clear difference between our position and that of almost any other country. We would take robust action where it was appropriate.

Robin Cook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the restraint that has been shown by British troops in peacekeeping that has earned them respect among the Iraqis? Will it really be possible for them to maintain that restraint if they are deployed to a US sector that has been policed for more than a year by US forces who have not shown the same level of restraint? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time US forces besieged Falluja, they left Iraq in uproar over the many civilian casualties? In assessing the request, will he consider carefully the risk to British troops, in that if they free up US forces for the next attack they may be seen by some Iraqis as equally responsible for civilian casualties over which neither he nor they will have any control whatever?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the tribute he pays to British troops, but I qualify his observation to this extent: British forces are able to adjust their approach and tactics in the light of the threat they face. They will have to be less restrained—if I may adopt his word—if there is a direct physical threat to them. I hope that will not be the case, but obviously they have the flexibility and sophistication to be able to adjust appropriately to the conditions. What has changed since the last time that Falluja was approached in the way that it is proposed to deal with it is that sovereignty has passed to the Iraqi Interim Government and it will ultimately be their decision as to whether those operations take place. Indeed, significant numbers of Iraqi forces on the ground will participate in any operation, as they did in Samarra. This is no longer simply a question of the Americans deciding and doing, but a matter for the Iraqi Interim Government.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that the difference between the British and American approaches to peacekeeping is not just a question of defending themselves against attack—British troops are just as robust in defending themselves against direct attack as any of their allies—but involves an approach to peacekeeping based on trying to keep the support of all the favourably disposed, non-insurgent civilian population? As the latest deployment is plainly intended to facilitate a further assault on Falluja, will the Government take the opportunity to try to exercise more influence on the Americans in their conduct of operations? In particular, will they stress the need to ensure that the force used is proportionate to the threat that is definitely known, and that action is conducted on a basis that minimises the threat to civilians and reduces the amount of air and artillery attack on densely populated areas of a city?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is at risk of making unfortunate generalisations about the US and the UK. I have conceded already that, in those areas where US forces are under a direct and regular threat from terrorist organisations, they must necessarily respond robustly. He quite fairly said that that would be the case if British troops faced the same kind of threat, but he must recognise that there are large parts of Iraq where US forces are deployed where, frankly, there is a degree of restraint—to adopt a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—and a degree of interaction with the local population that are no different from the way in which British forces operate in the south. The response of any force to a particular situation must depend on the threat that it faces and how often that threat occurs.

Gerald Kaufman: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about this being a military request; I also accept what he says about the response to that request being a matter of timing. Will he take into account the fact that many hon. Members would hope that that timing will take into account the possibility of United Kingdom forces risking their lives being exploited politically in a closely fought United States election?

Geoff Hoon: I am very conscious of that, which is why I was at pains to emphasise that this is not about the politics of the US election; it is, however, about the politics of the Iraqi election in January.

Ian Taylor: The Secretary of State convinced the House that the terms of engagement will be sufficiently robust, and I have no doubt that our forces are quite capable of operating outside their current area of operations. The problem is that much of the terrorism that they will take on was inevitable because of the way in which we went into the war. Quite a lot of the problems that we and our American allies are experiencing result from the fact that we did not have a proper plan for the peace. Regardless of what the chiefs of staff say, what does he believe will make the British influence sufficient to ensure that we do not get ourselves sucked further into a morass in Iraq, which is very dangerous and unlikely to be stable before the elections in January?

Geoff Hoon: Generally, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise, but on this occasion I do not quite follow why the current attacks by vicious, brutal and ruthless terrorists have anything to do with the way in which the war was prosecuted. Indeed, many of the people whom we are trying to deal with in places such as Falluja are not even Iraqi citizens and were not based in Iraq at the time. The truth is that we are trying to deal with people who have killed more Iraqis than they have killed coalition forces—by a huge number. Trying to deal with those people is vital, and I hope that all hon. Members will support that if we are to restore Iraq to the international community and to legitimacy.

Geraldine Smith: My right hon. Friend must be aware of the widespread public alarm at the possible deployment of British troops. Does he not realise that what the British people really want is a clearly defined exit strategy from Iraq, not greater commitments and greater danger for our troops out there?

Geoff Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I believe that there is a clear exit strategy: it is to ensure that elections can take place and that the security conditions are right to permit those elections and the election of a democratic Iraqi Government, together with, as I indicated, the training of Iraqi police, security forces and a new Iraqi army that increasingly takes responsibility for Iraqi security. That seems to me to be a clear exit strategy, and I hope that she supports it.

Bob Russell: May I remind the Secretary of State that 3,000 troops from the Colchester garrison served Queen and country in the Iraq war, a war that we now know was fought under a false prospectus, and that 500 further troops from Colchester served in the peacekeeping? He will be aware that several troops from Colchester lost their lives. He may be of the view that public opinion in this country does not link the request with the American presidential election, but clearly public opinion in this country does. May I ask him specifically whether, if the Black Watch is moved into the American zone, any further British troops will be called in to make up for the gap left by the Black Watch?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear earlier that that will be one of the considerations that will have to be addressed if we decide to accept this request.

Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the same President Bush who now wants the British forces to bail him out is the same man who, more than 12 months ago, said that the war was over? Is there not a strange irony about that? Why is it that it has to be done before 2 November? If it is going to be done before then, it is political. It is handing an oxygen cylinder to this President Bush, who was not elected properly the first time, and giving him a lifeline in order to win again. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I and many others, not only in the House but outside, do not take kindly to the idea that we are being engaged with President Bush and the Pentagon in order to bail them out.

Geoff Hoon: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are fully and thoroughly communicated to our American allies as we consider the timing of any request.

Crispin Blunt: When the Secretary of State rebuked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for unfortunate generalisations, I assume that he included the Chief of the General Staff, who told the Defence Committee that we fight with the Americans but not necessarily as the Americans. The House will require a great deal of reassurance that this distinction, which is not lost on the Iraqis, can be sustained if this battle group finds itself under American command.
	The Secretary of State also said that gaps must be covered. If he is to deploy the divisional reserve, I think that General Rollo and the rest of the troops—particularly those under such pressure in al-Amarah—will want the Secretary of State to be rather more than simply mindful of the need to replace the divisional reserve and give them and the House an assurance that the divisional reserve will be replaced if it is to be deployed under American command.

Geoff Hoon: I think that it is very important that we recognise that all countries have a particular style and way of conducting operations. In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I emphasised the importance of not simply generalising about the way in which different countries conduct military operations. There are many parts of Iraq where Americans are keeping the peace no differently from the way in which British soldiers keep the peace in the south of Iraq.

Glenda Jackson: If the request for assistance is, as has been widely reported, to enable American troops to launch an all-out attack on Falluja, why have the British Government not already said no? Such an attack would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, the terrorists having long gone, and will serve only to underline the total failure of the American Government to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Surely it will afford those who are opposed to this country the oxygen to be able to say that one of the best and most highly skilled and disciplined fighting forces in the world—namely the British Army—has been reduced to the level of mercenaries for a Republican White House.

Geoff Hoon: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's concluding remarks, I hope that she agrees that it is necessary to deal with the kinds of terrorist organisation that are operating from Falluja. It is vital that we deal with that threat to democracy and security. Knowing her very impressive record in condemning injustice, breaches of human rights and murder, I am slightly surprised that she is not saying that this is the right thing for coalition forces—not American forces—to do. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, the final decision as to whether operations are conducted against Falluja will be taken by the Iraqis. It is their country; it is their hearts and minds. If they judge it necessary to deal with the threat to Iraqi citizens, they will be the ones to take the decision.

Teddy Taylor: Although I was one of the minority on the decision to invade Iraq, does the Secretary of State accept that many people feel that we are not winning the propaganda war in Iraq, especially that for the hearts and minds of the people there? To that extent, may I ask him a simple question: if he goes ahead with putting the extra troops where they are required, will he make it abundantly clear at the same time that the British and American Governments will withdraw their troops when the newly elected Government in Iraq take the view that they can look after the security of the country themselves?

Geoff Hoon: It is vital that the Iraqis are responsible for their own security, which is why British and other coalition forces are engaged in extensive training programmes to equip Iraq with the right kinds of security forces. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman is right about the battle for hearts and minds and the question of public opinion in Iraq. If some slight good has come from the appalling and tragic death of Ken Bigley, it is that it has shown to huge numbers of people in Iraq and throughout the Arab world the appalling brutality of which the terrorists are capable. There are clear signs that that terrible death has swung opinion firmly on the side of those who are trying to deal with the terrorists.

Alan Williams: My right hon. Friend referred to political perception. Is it not a political reality that in the US election campaign, the role of the allies has become a central area of dispute between the two candidates? Is it not therefore essential that British troops are not seen as being used to favour one candidate over another?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly agree, and that will not happen.

Jenny Tonge: If we refuse the Americans' request, what penalties are we likely to incur?

Geoff Hoon: There would be no penalty, but we would have failed in our duty as an ally and as a country that has closely supported the United States— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Malcolm Savidge: Given such serious worries as increased risk to our forces, mission creep, and British involvement in military strategies that could cause major civilian casualties, alienate more Iraqis and perhaps be distorted by US domestic politics, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will have a full opportunity to debate and deliberate before a decision is taken?

Geoff Hoon: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is the same as the one that I have given him on many previous occasions: it has never been this country's constitutional arrangement that the House of Commons necessarily approves the redeployment of forces that have already been committed to a specific theatre. He might take a different view of what the constitutional arrangements should be, but I assure him and other hon. Members that when any decision is taken I shall report it to the House immediately.

Peter Tapsell: Is it not self-deluding to continue to describe the people defending Falluja as terrorists when the great majority of them are unquestionably Sunni nationalists who regard themselves as Arab patriots? Does the Secretary of State remember that before the war, from my personal experience, I warned him of the difficulties and dangers of fighting in Arab towns, to which he replied, "It depends which side the population is on"? He knows the answer to that question now, does he not?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi who lead significant numbers of foreign fighters in places such as Falluja are entitled in any way to be described as Sunni nationalists. They are brutal killers and they are killing Iraqis. It is our responsibility, on behalf of the coalition, to make the effort to deal with those people.

Andrew MacKinlay: I listened to the Secretary of State and I think I am correct—he will confirm this—that a decision has not been made and that it will be taken on military terms. May I put this simply: I beg him not to accede to the request? In addition to the military aspect, there is a political dimension to the situation, and hon. Members are entitled to ask him to take their views on that into account. Not one member of the parliamentary Labour party has supported the deployment. Many of us find it totally incredible that the United States of America cannot find the logistic support and infantry to fill the gap. I found his response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) deeply upsetting, because he said that he had not made up his mind but then said that to turn down the request would be letting down allies. It would not. The United Kingdom has given 110 per cent. on this issue, and some of us have provided political cover and support for this Government. I beg him not to try to stretch the envelope too much; otherwise it might burst. Some of us will not stomach it and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I say that many hon. Members still wish to speak, and brief supplementaries would be very helpful?

Geoff Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that I can reply to my hon. Friend, because I did not detect a question, but I will certainly take his observations into account.

Peter Viggers: Following earlier questions and answers, does the Secretary of State agree that the courage and determination of our armed forces are such that they will concur with any request that is made to them by the Government?

Geoff Hoon: That is the great strength of armed forces that are answerable constitutionally to Government and to this Parliament.

Dave Watts: It is clear that there might be a strong case for the need for more troops in the American sector, but can the Secretary of State spell out why those troops should be provided by the British Government and not the American Government?

Geoff Hoon: I have set out the case right from the start of my statement. These are extra operations being conducted in areas of particular difficulty. The US requires extra forces, and extra support from allies, including the United Kingdom, to be able to achieve those operations.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us who opposed this war, and still oppose it, believe none the less that, given the fact that we are there, and subject to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), it would be extremely difficult to refuse a request from the United States for military assistance? However, does it not also demonstrate the dangers of our presence? Therefore, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will give no assurance to anybody, explicit or implicit, that British forces will remain deployed there after the expiration of the current mandate in June next year?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out an argument that I have sought to use to persuade hon. Members on both sides of the House. When those who have opposed military operations look at the situation today in Iraq, they should be saying precisely what he said: here we are, we have a very difficult situation, and we have to continue our efforts to restore a degree of security in Iraq, to allow democratic elections to take place and to defeat terrorism. That is precisely the argument that I hope all hon. Members will subscribe to. As for a time limit, I shall not give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any guarantees, but obviously there are legal requirements that the United Kingdom would have to satisfy were the mandate to continue beyond the date that he specified.

Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State tell us when exactly was the last time that British troops operated in a war zone under the direct control of a foreign country?

Geoff Hoon: UK forces regularly come under the command of others—and not only of the United States. Whether they are operating in the south, as they are today, or whether they operate, if this request is accepted, under the control of a US commander further north in Iraq, a US commander is still ultimately in charge. A British commander is the No. 2. Whenever we deploy on multinational operations, for example as part of NATO, the commander may well be American or from any other of the NATO states. What my hon. Friend suggests may be unusual is actually a regular occurrence.

Quentin Davies: This is not a time for ambiguity, vacillation or prevarication of any kind: a decision needs to be taken. Perhaps a decision already has been taken but, if it has not, may I express the hope that we will accede to the request, so long as our commanders on the spot confirm that we have the resources to do the job? We were right to get into this operation alongside our American allies; my only regret is that we did not do it before, and did not complete the job in 1991. Now that we are in, it is very important that we continue to show ourselves to be firm and reliable allies, utterly committed to seeing this thing through and therefore prepared to take our share of the risks of the operation. I believe that the gallant British servicemen and women whom I met in the Gulf on two occasions when I was a defence spokesman would want that.

Geoff Hoon: I have set out to the House the process that we will follow. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when a decision is reached, I shall report it to the House in the usual way.

Jeremy Corbyn: Since the Secretary of State appears to have made up his mind, given his response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), will he tell us whether British troops will be present in the anticipated all-out attack on Falluja after 2 November? Will they be expected to take casualties as the United States has, and will they be involved in that sort of operation? Does he actually have any control over the matter once he has acceded to the request?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear in my statement that the request does not involve the deployment of British troops to Falluja.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The National Security Committee under the Iraqi Interim Government is attended by the American forces commander, but not the British one. Why is that? If we are to commit extra forces as the Secretary of State has outlined, will he seek attendance at that committee for the British commander, or is he content for us always to claim great influence over our allies while failing to deliver it where it counts—on the ground?

Geoff Hoon: There is significant British representation at that meeting at a very high level.

Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he is considering deploying additional British reserve troops when it is American forces that are under pressure? Will not the people of this country realise that this is political expediency with a large P?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that, and I believe that I have answered that question several times already. There is a clear operational reason for conducting the operation to remove the terrorist threat in places such as Falluja. The Americans have made a request of an ally to assist. We shall consider that request very carefully in the next few days.

Robert Smith: In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State accepted that our forces are so professional and well trained that they will rise to any challenge that is asked of them. Surely, therefore, their political masters have to be that much more responsible and careful about what challenges they ask them to rise to. To that end, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the overstretch in the US forces such that they cannot find the 600 troops from their own resources?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right that a careful assessment is required. That assessment will be conducted, but it does not include a detailed assessment of whether the United States is right to make the request. An ally has made a request. It is necessary that we consider it carefully.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has been at pains to say that our troops will not be committed in, for example, attacks on Falluja or direct action against terrorists. However, he has failed to say what precisely British troops will be required to do that cannot be done by the many American troops already present. That is particularly important given the fact that if British troops are deployed into the American zone, gaps will be created in the British zone.

Geoff Hoon: The specific reason is to free American forces to conduct extra operations in places such as Falluja where terrorists are well established and are attacking both coalition forces and innocent Iraqi civilians. We have been asked to fill in in the areas left by the American forces who will be engaged in such operations.

David Tredinnick: If we start to serve in the American sector, what input in the decision-making process will British commanders on the ground have? What will the relationship with their American counterparts be? What discretion, if any, will they have? Does he not agree that his defence of the morale of the Black Watch is a vindication of the regimental system, which he has pledged to destroy?

Geoff Hoon: Let us just deal with the point about the regimental system. Opposition Members have had an entertaining time in their local and, indeed, national newspapers talking about attacks on that system, but there is no such attack. There will still be a regimental system, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reads more carefully the statement that I made to the House and the material that has been published, he will accept that that is the case. That demonstrates the importance of studying the Government's proposals carefully.

Mike Gapes: Is there not a danger of exaggerating the political significance in the United States of any decision that we take? Is it not a fact that the woeful economic performance of the Bush Administration and Democrats' anger at what happened four years ago are more likely to decide the outcome of the election than any simple decision made in the House? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whatever decision we make will be made in the light of sending a clear message to the Iraqi people that we will not desert them and will see things through to next year to help them in their elections?

Geoff Hoon: I suspect that there might be as much danger in answering the first part of my hon. Friend's question as there was in less friendly questions earlier today. It is important, however, that we consider the future of Iraq and make the decisions required to allow it to hold elections in January. That is what this is about.

Desmond Swayne: My interest is in the register.
	The Secretary of State rightly spoke about the robust rules of engagement. I am inclined to support the deployment, but I have a reservation. Perhaps he can reassure me by telling me that he shares my anger and indignation that a soldier carrying out his mission in Iraq can be cleared of wrongdoing by his commanding officer and yet be arraigned at the Old Bailey? That is an outrage.

Geoff Hoon: That is a matter for the courts. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that it is best left to the legal authorities. It is not a matter for Ministers to comment on or, indeed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I tell the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that the Front Bench has had its turn, and he must be quiet?

Geoff Hoon: I was hoping that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would refer to his excellent work in co-ordinating our efforts with Italian forces, which was a valuable illustration of the importance of coalition activity. The House, and the Government in particular, are extremely grateful to him for the way in which he promoted good alliances with our coalition counterparts.

Alan Simpson: I know that the Secretary of State said that no decision has been made about the request, but given his answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I was reminded of a line from a song in the musical "Oklahoma":
	"I'm jist a girl who cain't say no".
	Can he tell the House of any occasion when a request from our American allies was turned down? If not, would he as Secretary of State place any limits on the deployment of British troops in out-of-area activities at the request of the Bush Administration?

Geoff Hoon: "Oklahoma" was a bit before my time.

Dennis Skinner: The actress's name was Gloria Grahame—an American.

Geoff Hoon: I am getting help with the participants; but I do not accept the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). It is important to concentrate on the operational nature of the deployment and recognise that it is in the interests of the Iraqi people.

Hugh Robertson: Both the report by the Iraq survey group and the initial report by the Volcker inquiry highlighted the extent of corruption at the United Nations during the oil-for-food programme and its effect on the insurgency in Iraq. Given that Saddam Hussein and his entourage personally benefited to the tune of $10 billion, what effect is that having on the current insurgency, particularly in the Sunni areas, where our forces may be deployed?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. There is no doubt that some people who are continuing to fight are fighting for the restoration not of Saddam's regime in particular, but of the privileges and money that they enjoyed as a result of the corruption that existed during his time in office. There is no doubt that many of those people benefited significantly and are using some of those funds to buy weapons to kill not only members of the coalition, but Iraqis.

Rob Marris: I salute the work of our troops in Iraq, but urge my right hon. Friend to treat the request with great circumspection for fear of putting them in greater danger. Can he explain how it is that, as he has repeatedly said, he is considering a request from the United States of America, when in theory earlier this year sovereignty was transferred in Iraq? Has there been any request from the Iraqi Government? Will he explain the command structure in that relationship?

Geoff Hoon: The request is from a fellow member of the multi-national force. We are there at the behest, and with the consent of, the Iraqi Interim Government and, as I indicated earlier, should there be any operations against Falluja, or any other place in Iraq, they will take place only with the agreement of the Interim Government.

Mark Francois: The whole House will be conscious that the Secretary of State bears a heavy responsibility. Discharging that responsibility a little while ago, he said in response to a question that we would fail to support an ally if we were to turn down this request. How can he have come to so concrete a conclusion if, as he has claimed repeatedly this afternoon, no decision has yet been taken?

Geoff Hoon: It is clear that the reason why we would want to accede to this request—if that is what we decide to do—would be because we would be in support of an ally. We cannot go into a coalition and then simply cross our fingers and say that there are certain circumstances under which we will not participate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that for a moment. Were we to refuse that request, it would go to the heart of our relationship not only with the United States, but with other members of that alliance.

David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend say a little about the logistical prerequisites of any such further deployment, with particular reference to the greater need for armoured vehicles?

Geoff Hoon: Those are matters that will be the subject of the reconnaissance that is about to take place and they will be taken into account by the chiefs of staff in their advice to Ministers.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from conflicts as diverse as Malaya in the 1950s to the Balkans in the 1990s, the British Army has both developed and implemented peacekeeping strategies that are superior to those of any other army in the world? Does he recall the dispute between the British and the Americans over the occupation of Pristina airport and the way in which that was resolved? Does he therefore think that he should pay more attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that, if the British are deployed in this way, it is vital that they have a key input into the counter-insurgency strategy that is followed?

Geoff Hoon: As I made clear, the request is for British forces to participate in operations in a discrete and particular area of Iraq and therefore their position will be no different from the one that they are in today in conducting operations in the south of Iraq.

Anne McIntosh: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute not just to the troops, but to the excellent work of those in the RAF, many of whom will have come from the Vale of York. If he accedes to the request, will he not be moving further away from his target of having 24 months between operational tours? Does that not support the thesis of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that we need more battalions rather than fewer?

Geoff Hoon: Unfortunately not, because the very people who have the least opportunity of a 24-month rotation are those who have precisely the kinds of skills that we are intending to reinforce by redeploying the four battalions from Northern Ireland into those areas of shortage. It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head. If she really is concerned about those who have been most stretched in recent times, she needs to look at the logistics and at engineers, intelligence personnel and signallers, who are precisely the kind of people who support operations. If she looks carefully at what I said, she will see that our intention is to use the strength released from those four battalions to help those shortage areas.

John Bercow: This is clearly no time for narrow partisanship or opportunistic repositioning. Speaking as one of those who voted for the war, would back exactly the same text again, believe that the Prime Minister has been honest on this subject throughout and think that the coalition forces should finish the job that they have quite properly started, may I put it to the Secretary of State that, subject to the caveats that he has very properly highlighted this afternoon, in seeking to reinforce United States efforts to establish security in Iraq and fight terrorism there, he is entitled to receive the strong, principled and consistent support of people in all parties for doing what is right, however inconvenient it may be?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I assume that he was not accusing the Government of opportunistic repositioning. He seemed to be directing his gaze towards his own Front Bench.

Tomlinson Working Group

Charles Clarke: I should like to make a statement on the reform of education and training for 14 to 19-year-olds on the occasion of the publication of the final report from Mike Tomlinson's working group on 14 to 19 reform.
	I welcome the working group's report and commend it wholeheartedly to the House. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Tomlinson and his colleagues for their very hard work over the past 21 months. They have consulted widely and openly, and have now produced a cogently argued, challenging and compelling vision of the future. Through their regular engagement with the many stakeholders, including schools, colleges, universities and employers, I believe that they have laid the basis for the development of a broad consensus on the best way forward. I believe that it is important that this consensus extends across the whole House, so I have encouraged Mr. Tomlinson to keep in touch with the main Opposition parties and have authorised my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to give early briefing to their spokespeople.
	I appointed Mr. Tomlinson with the view that the status quo is not sustainable. Doing nothing is not an option. Under the current system, many of our young people achieve very high standards, whether in schools, colleges or work-based training, and move on to higher education or employment. But too many drop entirely out of education or training by the age of 17. Some do not have sufficient grasp of the core skills that they need for work and life. Others cannot find a straightforward path to meet their vocational ambitions. Some are simply not stretched enough to enable them to fulfil their own potential.
	When we published our policy document "14–19: Opportunity and Excellence" at the beginning of last year, we concluded that those problems could not be solved simply by short-term measures, important though they are. Longer-term reform is also necessary. We therefore asked the working group to advise on a framework for qualifications that would enable all our young people to achieve their full potential, motivate them to stay in learning after the age of 16 and also reduce the burden of assessment on students, their teachers and the examinations system.
	The working group's report covers all aspects of the curriculum and qualifications framework for the 14 to 19 phase. Its recommendations have far-reaching implications for the structures of education and training. They include proposals to introduce the study of core skills in literacy, numeracy, communication and ICT for all 14 to 19-year-olds; direct employer engagement in the development of vocational programmes; provision of coherent routes to fulfil vocational aspirations; the introduction of an extended project to replace coursework; and a more academically stretching system of assessment. Each of these will require short and medium-term reforms. On that basis, the report recommends development of the diploma, with the recommendation that, over time, all existing academic and vocational qualifications would be brought within its framework.
	The report argues that that approach has many advantages. It would establish a single coherent, understood qualifications framework for the first time. It would put vocational and academic qualifications on a common footing, again for the first time. It would promote greater personalisation of the curriculum to meet the needs of individuals and greater choice for young people. The report also argues that a diploma would stretch our most able young people while re-engaging with those who currently drop out of learning. Such an approach would, of course, bring great challenges, as the working group acknowledges. It would be the biggest single reform of qualifications in any of our lifetimes.
	Mr. Tomlinson's report rightly states that the Department for Education and Skills and its partner organisations must undertake further work before a blueprint for reform is drawn up and that the reforms will take at least 10 years to introduce. I agree with the careful, deliberate approach to reform adopted by the working group, and I accept it. Above all in that complex area, we owe it to our young people to ensure that the stability of the qualification system is paramount in our thinking and that reform is based on consensus, evolution, careful planning and the rigorous piloting of any change.
	For those reasons, I shall, of course, consider the report carefully, and I intend to make positive and detailed proposals in a White Paper early in the new year. The White Paper will include my assessment of how the working group report measures up to the five tests that I set when the working group's interim report was published. The tests are: excellence—will the system stretch the most able; vocational—will it address the historical failure to provide a high-quality vocational offer that motivates young people; employability—will it prepare all young people for the world of work; assessment—will it reduce the burden of assessment; and disengagement—will it stop our high drop-out rate at 16?
	In preparing the White Paper, I shall, of course, work closely with my colleagues with responsibility for education and training in Wales and Northern Ireland, which share our qualifications framework, and with our statutory partners. I am writing today to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ask it to undertake the necessary work to enable us to develop our detailed proposals for the White Paper. I shall also discuss my proposals with a wide range of stakeholders, including schools, colleges, universities and employers, and I look forward to hearing the views of the Education and Skills Committee in due course. I expect this to be the first of many opportunities to consider those crucial issues in this House.
	I am determined that any evolution of the system must increase public confidence in the system. My approach will therefore build on all that is good in the current system, including the real and great strengths of A-levels and GCSEs. The Tomlinson report rightly confirms the place in the system of A-levels and GCSEs, which it seeks to build on and which will stay as the building blocks of any new system. Mike Tomlinson's report also makes it clear that assessment must and will continue at all levels on the basis of rigorous, trusted and externally marked examinations, but, again as Mike's report proposes, we will need to consider the number and nature of those exams. We also believe it essential that full public accountability for results is maintained, including the publication nationally of exam results, school by school, at 16 and 19.
	The Government have made tremendous strides in taking action to raise standards in primary and secondary schools, and we have also addressed both the challenges of higher education and the development of the nation's skills base. Now we must move on the reform of 14 to 19 education and training. A number of the most pressing problems are already being addressed. For example, this September saw the first 1,000 pupils on young apprenticeships start their programmes and the introduction into the national curriculum of work-related learning for all 14 to 16-year-olds, with an increased take-up of vocational qualifications. The increased flexibility programme allows 14 to 16-year-olds to spend time out of school in colleges or work-based learning, in which approximately 90,000 pupils are currently involved.
	The working group's proposals give us an opportunity to consider more far-reaching reform that will shape 14 to 19 education for decades to come. Its proposals have implications for every young person in school, college or the workplace, and for those who work with them. The opportunity is great, but with it comes the heavy responsibility to turn Mike Tomlinson's vision of a 14 to 19 system that meets the needs and aspirations of all our young people into a practical reality, and I hope that both sides of the House share that objective.

Tim Collins: I thank both the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards not only for an advance copy of the statement, but for the constructive, positive and non-partisan way in which they have handled this important matter. As the Secretary of State said, today is hugely important for schools, employers and future generations of young people. I hope that he will pass on from both sides of the House our gratitude to Mike Tomlinson and his team for their diligent, detailed and painstaking work.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that what has been sketched out is a 10-year programme that is likely to stretch across three Parliaments, it is important to reach cross-party agreement on at least some aspects of the proposals? Does he accept that the objectives set out by the Tomlinson report—to raise core skills of literacy, numeracy and ICT, to improve vocational education, to encourage greater participation beyond the age of 16, and to stretch and differentiate the most able more clearly and rigorously—are issues on which we can and should all agree? In that spirit, does he accept that proposals to reduce coursework will be widely welcomed as a means by which simultaneously to reduce pupil and teacher workload and to tackle growing allegations about the prevalence of plagiarism, and that the extended project must not become a back-door route to the same problems?
	Does the Secretary of State share our strong welcome for the proposal to make receipt of a diploma absolutely contingent on passing a tough, externally assessed literacy and numeracy test? Does he agree that the aim should be to put our young people through fewer but more rigorous exams and to encourage flair and originality rather than an excessively mechanistic approach? Does he further agree that we must move away from the days when academic subjects were exclusively for the best and vocational subjects entirely for the rest, and that in future every child will need the encouragement and incentive to do well, in challenging and inspiring ways, in both? Does he agree that if we get that right, we can make huge progress in reducing truancy and improving staying-on rates?
	The Secretary of State rightly said that the report requires and deserves in-depth study before final detailed conclusions are reached. We entirely endorse that approach and will pursue it ourselves. However, may I press him on some issues not of detail but of principle? Does he agree that Britain, not for a few years under one party but for generations across all parties, has undervalued and under-invested in vocational education? Can we agree that getting it right will require substantial new resources and that we cannot and must not ask schools or colleges to transform their vocational offerings without the wherewithal to do so?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with successive Labour and Conservative Ministers in the past 15 years that school league tables are valuable and useful to parents? Does he accept that one can have neither the Prime Minister's vision of choice for parents nor the Conservative vision without those league tables and does he recognise that external assessment at 16 is the absolute prerequisite for them? Does he accept the unequivocal view of the British Chambers of Commerce that external assessment at 16 is essential for employers too?
	Does he agree in principle that greater differentiation of the most able means that fewer young people at 18 would get the very highest grade? Tomlinson recommends that the top 5 or 10 per cent. should get his proposed A-double-plus or distinction diploma. We take the view that 5 to 10 per cent. should get the very highest grade by norm referencing. We may well differ on the mechanism, but will he confirm that he accepts the principle that we can no longer have more than 20 per cent. of all A-level students attaining the very highest grade?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to make sure that all school leavers have some qualification, but that the way to do that is to raise teaching standards, not to give out qualifications without justification? In that context, will he be very careful about the report's idea that the first of the four proposed tiers of the diploma—the entry level—should be given to people who have not reached the standard of a level 1 NVQ or even a grade G at GCSE?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with the CBI that the absolute priority for employers is to raise the standards of functional literacy and numeracy among school leavers, which have been unacceptably poor under successive Governments? Does he therefore agree that that aspect of reform requires the most urgent action? Does he agree with the CBI that an attempt to scrap all existing exams would be an unwelcome and unnecessary diversion from that task?
	Finally and most importantly, does the Secretary of State agree that, although there are considerable virtues in the diploma idea, it should include, not replace, GCSEs and A-levels? As this is the most important issue for many of those observing these discussions, may I press him specifically? Is it his view, as it is mine, that the relevant diploma should have, up front on its front page, the subject and grade that a pupil has attained at A-level or GCSE? Does he agree with Mike Tomlinson's repeated denials in interviews that he is recommending the end of A-levels and GCSEs? If that is the Secretary of State's view, will he make it clear that he will not allow abolition to become the agenda of those who seek to implement recommendation 2 of the report, which is, as he knows, somewhat ambiguous? It says both that
	"the existing system of qualifications taken by 14–19 year-olds should be replaced"
	and that
	"Existing qualifications such as GCSEs"
	and
	"A-levels . . . should cease to be free-standing qualifications in their own right but should evolve to become components of the Diploma".
	Which is it? Will the Secretary of State join me in clearly, unequivocally and finally ruling out the abolition of those exams?
	The Tomlinson report offers a real chance for progress if we focus absolutely on the imperatives of improving vocational education and raising basic standards of functional literacy and numeracy. We must not waste time instead on a debate about abolishing and replacing well-understood and respected GCSEs and A-levels. We must build on what works, not scrap everything and start all over again. Above all, we must raise standards, not water them down. I, too, hope that we can all agree about that.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his overall approach. I will pass on his gratitude to Mr. Tomlinson and his committee. I endorse what he said about having to work on a cross-party basis in so far as we can. That does not mean that we will agree on every particular—no one expects that—but it requires that we have a mature discussion in a positive way.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general points about the extended project work and coursework, the external rigours of the diploma, the need for flair and originality and the importance of academic and vocational education. I also agree that the development of a proper vocational offer has resource implications that need to be dealt with properly, although I think that collaboration between schools and colleges and employers can take us some way down that route.
	League tables do indeed have value at 16 and require rigorous external assessment. As I said in my statement, a rigorous external assessment regime at 16 is critical to the system.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about a quota for A-level grades. I heard his party leader making similar remarks earlier today. I believe that their view is an outdated concept of awarding A-level grades by quota, not quality, and I think it is entirely the wrong approach. It was in fact my predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph, who brought about the changes that led to the situation of which they are complaining. It is rare that I would applaud Sir Keith and pray him in aid against the current Conservative party, but the fact is that we have to have an assessment system that looks at people's quality and drives forward their attainment rather than taking some arbitrary "Graded grains make finer flour" approach.
	The whole thrust of the proposals is to raise standards throughout, including in the core skills, such as literacy and numeracy, and we will certainly support that. I agree that progress can be made very quickly in this area, but perhaps I should emphasise that I announced the White Paper early in the new year because I want to set out a very clear programme of work dealing with all those proposals in order, precisely as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
	I need to reassert what Mr. Tomlinson said today on A-levels and GCSEs. He said:
	"The point I would like to make very clear is that these proposals will not—and I do not know how many times I will have to repeat it—not mean the abolition of external examinations, nor the abolition of GCSE, AS and A-levels as courses and subjects."
	I agree that this diploma must show the grades in each of the subjects and the particular level of qualification—that is what it ought to be.
	Finally, I agree that the suggestion that the whole report is about the abolition of exams is a complete misreading of the whole thrust of what we are about. The report is about raising standards at all levels of education and ensuring that every young person can fulfil their aspirations in a way that the current system makes difficult rather than simple to achieve.

Phil Willis: I, too, thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the courtesy of an advance copy, and also for fully briefing myself and the Liberal Democrats on today's proposals from Mike Tomlinson. The Secretary of State's efforts to maintain a broad consensus over the key proposals is appreciated by my party, and we say that it is absolutely critical to their success. It is, however, a great pity that some have sought to undermine the review for narrow party political gain, without even considering the proposals in detail. I should also like to offer our appreciation to Mike Tomlinson and the 14 to 19 working group for undertaking what has been a Herculean task. They deserve the praise of the whole House.
	As a party, we Liberal Democrats offer broad support for the review's overall direction and welcome the concept of the new diploma. We also welcome the time span involved in implementing various aspects of it and hope that it will be possible to introduce many of those aspects within that time scale, where appropriate.
	I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State made it clear that he will have no truck with a return to norm referencing for any stage of the diploma. To deny young people recognition of their achievements on the basis of a mathematical quota would be unacceptable to my party, and I am delighted that it is unacceptable to him. But will he also make it clear—he did not do so in his answer to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—that he rejects a single-subject qualification structure within the diploma? We strongly support the principle, laid out by Mike Tomlinson today, of retaining much of the content of GCSEs and A-levels, but we agree that the qualifications themselves, as single subjects, must go. The diploma cannot simply be a wrapper for existing qualifications, and if the Secretary of State believes that Mike Tomlinson is saying that it can, perhaps he will say so at the Dispatch Box.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State has noted the comments of the CBI and of the British Chambers of Commerce. We are delighted that there will be differentiation within the diploma at all levels, but will he confirm that unless a student gets the necessary grades in ICT, numeracy and literacy, they will not be awarded the diploma at the level in question? Will he also explain in what way he expects British business to be involved in and influence the vocational curriculum, because the record of such involvement is certainly not a good one to date?
	Liberal Democrats support the use of internal assessment throughout the 14 to 19 phase and a move away from age-related examinations, but will the Secretary of State explain how it is possible to move away from such examinations while retaining league tables at 16, as he seemed to suggest earlier? The two ideas seem to contradict each other. We also support the concept of chartered examiners and accredited centres to guarantee quality. We find it remarkable that a first-year postgraduate is allowed to mark the work of an undergraduate, leading to the award of a degree, yet a teacher with 20 years' experience cannot mark the work of a 15-year-old.
	The aspect of the Tomlinson reforms that pleases us most is that they begin to meet the needs of an army of young people who have so far been left out of a curriculum and qualifications structure that is largely irrelevant. How does the Secretary of State reconcile his own five-year plan, which encourages institutional autonomy, with a 14 to 19 review that seeks institutional collaboration? How does he propose to offer all young people independent quality guidance in the making of informed choices? How are young people going to access transport to enable them to move between institutions and the workplace? Crucially, how will the diploma stimulate learning post-16 for young people who are not in full-time education or training?
	There are many vital issues that need clarification, and hopefully, when the Secretary of State introduces the White Paper it will deal not just with the Tomlinson reforms but with the entire 14 to 19 phase, including those vital issues. Today's report gives us a blueprint for the future, but we hope that it will prove to be more than just an interesting wrapper. We hope that, in 10 years' time, it will provide the four-year-olds of today with a completely new curriculum and choice.

Charles Clarke: I echo what I said to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), in that I appreciate the constructive approach taken by the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in particular. I shall respond to five of the points that were made. I do not believe that a diploma can, under any circumstances, be simply a wrapper for individual qualifications. The whole point of the proposed diploma as it evolves in five or 10 years' time—or whenever it may be—is that it should provide a way of interrelating the various qualifications arising at various points. That means that we still have the key A-level subjects or whatever at the top, but there is a relationship between the subjects, which I believe is the right way to proceed. It is certainly not simply a wrapper.
	On the core, the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. He is right that Mike Tomlinson is suggesting that at each stage there should be a certain core of basic skills that everyone should have—and it will be tested. Incidentally, as Mike Tomlinson pointed out today, that is a sharper requirement than the current one for five A* to C GCSEs, because it requires English and maths to be part of that approach overall. It is a significant development—a toughness, in a way—to move forward on that basis.
	I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about employers and would remark simply that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, David Bell, particularly emphasised today the key role for employers in designing the curriculum. We believe that, through the sector skills councils and other work that we are carrying out, we are laying the proper basis for that to happen. That is why I very much hope that the CBI will adopt a positive approach towards it.
	On the question of rigour, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The key issue is how it is established at each stage of the examination regime—

Desmond Swayne: Rigor mortis.

Charles Clarke: It is interesting to hear the Conservatives talking about rigor mortis, as it largely characterises their party.
	On collaboration for the 14 to 19 phase, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and we believe that the process that we already have in train will allow it to happen.

Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement to the House this afternoon. With respect to what is proposed for 14 to 19-year-olds and vocational training, may I tell him that we cannot get the places quickly enough? If he wants to make progress in advance of the 10 years that he anticipates, north Staffordshire would be happy to be involved in a pilot scheme between the college of further education and the schools.
	On my right hon. Friend's statement and the taking of further advice from the Select Committee on Education and Skills, given that one of the really serious issues that we face today is climate change, I ask him to take seriously the issues in education for sustainable development and to use the Tomlinson report to integrate that subject into the new curriculum that we will be establishing.

Charles Clarke: First, I enthusiastically accept my hon. Friend's offer to have Stoke help with the piloting work. Secondly, we published a year ago our action plan for sustainable development, which included particular aspects of curricular organisation, and I agree with my hon. Friend that this report provides important opportunities.

Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the principal factors that has called the rigour of the current exam system into question is the increasing prevalence of course work in it? I welcome the Tomlinson commitment to reduce it. However, does he also accept that over the next 10 years many millions of young people will be taking exams as they are at the moment? What proposals does he have to bring forward the reduction in the amount of course work, so that those pupils can be brought into the new exam system before the Tomlinson report is fully implemented?

Charles Clarke: I said in my earlier response that the White Paper will include a timetable for implementing the various changes. We will work in close consultation with the examination boards and others, precisely to address the points of rigour that the hon. Gentleman makes about the relative merits of course work vis-à-vis examinations and similar issues. One mistake that I do not intend to make is to introduce a set of changes in a relatively instantaneous way without consulting fully the relevant interests. I want to ensure that they are properly locked in, which is the principle that I shall apply to course work as to other issues.

Alan Howarth: The whole House will be grateful to Mr. Tomlinson and his colleagues for their work. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a forlorn quest at 16 and 17 to achieve perhaps a D or an E at A-level never was part of any true gold standard? Does he not have some concern that a highly elaborate contrivance to certify within a single system basic numeracy and literacy, vocational skills and advanced conceptual ability may turn out to be fool's gold?

Charles Clarke: I do not think that it is fool's gold, with very great respect to my right hon. Friend. The fact is that there are too many criticisms of the quality of the core skills of those entering employment and those going to university. Even if some of it is saloon bar comment, however, too much of it has some substance for me to be able to ignore it as I reflect on what changes should be made. That is why I believe that it is right to establish a proper core of skills that individuals should have as they leave school and either go to university or into employment. Is that fool's gold? I see no reason why it needs to be. There is no reason to assume that many more young people than now will not achieve the basic skills in literacy, numeracy and IT that are necessary to equip them for life. It is a reasonable ambition for a Government to seek to make that happen.

John Maples: We will all need some time to digest what Mr. Tomlinson has said, but I wish to express two general hopes to the Secretary of State. The first is that if we are going to endure the disruption of replacing one exam system with another—or developing the exam system in the way that is envisaged—we should put in place something that will last a generation. That means that it must have the support of schools, teachers, parents, employers, universities and as wide a range of political opinion as possible. Secondly, I hope that we end up at A-level with a genuine objective assessment of people's suitability for university education. It is widely accepted that the current A-level does not do that, but it is equally unacceptable that it should be adjusted in some subjective way to try to decide who is qualified for a university education. If the A-level that results from this process provides that genuine objective assessment, it will be a huge advance.

Charles Clarke: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is why I have approached the issue as I have done so far. I am also grateful to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers who have participated in serious discussion with us on these questions. It would be extremely undesirable if we were to set off on some ideological bean feast, and I am well aware that consensus is important. I also agree that it is important to ensure that A-levels are fit for purpose in terms of determining university admission. It will require several reforms to A-levels, as Mike Tomlinson has set out, including the extended essay and the possible greater differentiation between awards at different levels. However, I cannot accept the proposal from the Leader of the Opposition that the quality of somebody's achievement at A-level is seen as irrelevant and that what is important is whether one comes in the top 5 per cent. of the cohort. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must aim for standards and quality at A-level to ensure that universities can choose those who will most benefit.

Parmjit Dhanda: I very much welcome the Tomlinson report, but I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one small element of it that causes a little concern, which is the greater use of mixed-age classes. That can be a great help because some have the opportunity to take exams early, but much international research suggests that if the age range is too wide it can cause personal and emotional development problems for the youngest and the oldest in the group. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that into consideration before the White Paper is produced in the new year.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is a question of horses for courses. It is, for example, possible to imagine learning a modern foreign language with people of a slightly wider range of ability working together, although one would not do that more generally across the curriculum for the emotional and developmental reasons that my hon. Friend mentions. I take his point seriously and will look into it carefully as we decide how to move from where we are now to the White Paper.

Jenny Tonge: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I welcome the proposals that we think are in the Tomlinson report—I have not read it yet. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that my grandchildren, many of whom are just starting their school careers, will not be taught for the next 10 years by confused and muddled teachers who do not know what the new system involves?

Charles Clarke: That is a rather unfair attack on the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Confused and muddled is Liberal Democrat and teachers are teachers, and there we have both in Harrogate.

Phil Willis: That is unfair.

Charles Clarke: It is grossly unfair, indeed.
	I accept that we need to increase the quality of teaching significantly. A central element of that is continuous professional development, and that is especially true in a climate in which we move to a greater parity between academic and vocational qualifications. I also accept that any process of reform, such as that set out by Mike Tomlinson today, must be slow, stable and mature, instead of being imposed by diktat at some given point. That is why I have been keen to operate on the basis of consensus and of clear signposts. I hope that the White Paper sets out the way in which we intend to do that to the hon. Lady's satisfaction.

Colin Burgon: As an ex-teacher, I can confirm the perception that our approach to vocational education has been woeful over the past 20 or 30 years. I welcome this golden opportunity to put things right. I notice that my right hon. Friend said—I welcome this as well—that there will be direct employer engagement in the development of vocational programmes, and we heard much about the CBI's role. However, when we talk about the world of work, there is another social partner—the TUC. What role does he envisage for it in vocational schemes?

Charles Clarke: Full partnership. We have established the skills alliance to address such matters, including at the final stages of school and in college. Its two key members are the CBI and the TUC, along with other partners across government—so the TUC has a key role.
	Let me emphasise that it is a mistake to identify employment purely with private sector employment. The major public sector employers also have a big role to play. There are some interesting developments, such as hospitals working with schools in their locality. Many people in school look for opportunities to work in, for example, health, and public sector employers can work well with schools. So, trade unions are involved, but so are public sector employers, not simply private sector employers.

Alistair Burt: May I simply ask the Secretary of State that when he considers the implications of the report and the future implications for the curriculum, he has an external reference point beyond these islands, as well as looking at the historic problems that we have had? Anything in the 14 to 19-year-old curriculum that does not address the rapidly widening educational gap between ourselves, the United States and, in particular, the far east will not be doing its job. If he can give us the assurance that he will look at the implications in a world context, as well as in that of our own, we will all be much relieved.

Charles Clarke: I can give that assurance. The key international comparative statistic that we have highlighted throughout the process is our very low performance in people staying on in education and training at 16 compared with many other countries. We do relatively well at the ages of 10 and 11 and at university, but we do poorly at staying on at 16 and 17, precisely because of our historic failure, under Governments of all parties, to address the vocational issue correctly, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) acknowledged. That is what the report is designed to address.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—we are living in an international marketplace for labour. We need therefore to ensure that our young people are educated to the highest international levels. I believe that our sector skills council approach has a good chance of achieving precisely what is needed to meet his aspirations.

Ian Gibson: This is a real A-plus report, which will have hugely positive implications and ramifications across the British education system. However, does it address the problem of the gender imbalance and the problems of different results between the two sexes and the different motivations?

Charles Clarke: May I say how delighted I am to see my hon. Friend, who is also my personal friend—most of the time—in the House?
	I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. Although we have a strong record on increasing the number of apprenticeships, which have trebled since 1997, it remains the case that in some sectors—for example, construction and engineering—there is a very low number of young women taking on apprenticeships. Our approach, across the range, is to ensure that there is a real attack on the issues of gender imbalance, which exist throughout the education system. The proposals allow ways in which we can address that more effectively.

Damian Green: I am glad that the Secretary of State signs up to the universal consensus that one of the historic failures of our education system—probably going back to the second world war—has been the inability to make vocational education attractive enough early enough, so that those who could most benefit from it do so. That is why the drop-out rate is so high, as he emphasised.
	In that context, may I urge him to be radical in his White Paper and not simply restrict himself to the idea of changing the qualifications? We should learn from other countries, especially in other parts of Europe that have a much better record on vocational education, and allow pupils access to vocational education much earlier. It is often too late in our system to wait until they are 14-plus because by then they have been turned off full-time education. If the Secretary of State has that as part of his White Paper, I suspect that it will stand a much greater chance of long-term success.

Charles Clarke: We do indeed have that. Under the existing pre-apprenticeship schemes, young people aged 14 to 16 take time out from school with an employer and a local college, and there are some interesting pathfinder schemes, which I can show the hon. Gentleman if he is interested, that demonstrate precisely the truth of his remarks. From the age of 13 or 14, many young people want to start getting at least an understanding of the workplace and how things go, which is very positive indeed. Mike Tomlinson's report reflects that approach and drives it forward, and I am sure that the White Paper we shall publish in January or February will continue to do so.

David Drew: The Tomlinson report is welcome, even if long overdue. Will my right hon. Friend use the report as the opportunity to make a clarion call and take up with the professions and the wider establishment the long-held belief—certainly held by me and, I am sure, many others—that there is an anti-industrial culture in this country? It is time to accept vocationalism in its own right, as it is vital to the future of our country. Will my right hon. Friend take that up as a matter of urgency?

Charles Clarke: It is interesting that my hon. Friend used the phrase "anti-industrial". There has never really been an issue about some vocations; a vocation in medicine or law is seen as okay academically, but industrial vocations are seen to be more complicated. In general, other countries—Germany is the example often given—have paid much more attention to that matter. That culture is deep and difficult to move. I think we shall succeed in moving it, but my hon. Friend is right: achieving it will require a tremendous amount of effort and consensus across the country. The reason that we are standing at a turning point is that there is now the will to make that happen, and I look forward to working with colleagues to ensure that we can really drive out the anti-industrial emphasis in our education system.

Nick Gibb: Tomlinson expresses concern about literacy and basic skills in maths, but should not those matters be sorted out by the end of primary school? By the age of 14, it is too late in many cases. Surely, the real problem is not the exam system in secondary school but the teaching methods in primary school, where, despite the national literacy strategy, too much emphasis is put on whole language teaching of reading at the expense of phonics. Far too few primary schools teach multiplication tables by rote. Does the Secretary of State accept that Tomlinson is over-complex, will undermine the gold standard of the A-level and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, will be a huge distraction from the real issues and causes of concern in our education system? Doing nothing is not an option, but doing the wrong thing would be catastrophic.

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis in just about any respect. I do not share his analysis of the pedagogical measures that are being used. I draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is sitting next to me on the Treasury Bench—when he was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the literacy and numeracy strategies have made a material difference and have increased performance at the age of 11. It is necessary to address those questions by improving teacher quality as other Members have outlined, but the proposals are not about abolishing A-levels or anything of that type. People can try to run a scare on that basis—they are entitled to do so—but the report simply does not bear that interpretation, as Mike Tomlinson himself has made clear today and previously.

David Heath: May I ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the academic curriculum? In the traditional sciences, far too often there seems to be a lack of imagination and relevance. There are invidious choices in the humanities, especially between history and geography, and there is a lack of opportunity in languages, both modern and classical. Will the proposals create more latitude to allow able students to explore to the fullest extent the whole range of the curriculum?

Charles Clarke: Yes, they will. As I said in response to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—collaboration is particularly important so that different schools and colleges work together to make real curriculum offers to young people as they reach the age of 16, 17 and 18. That is already happening much more now, including with some of the more surprising and narrow subjects. I am confident that what the hon. Gentleman is looking for will indeed be met in the proposals in our White Paper.

Julie Kirkbride: I agree with what the Secretary of State said today about his aims and aspirations, but like the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) I worry about the one-size-fits-all approach. The Secretary of State is right to say that vocational education has been lacking in the UK, but at the other end of the spectrum he must also worry about the many fewer Nobel prizes, for example, in science that the UK now wins compared with some years ago. Will he reassure the House that a rigorous academic standard of externally assessed education will be available for the benefit of those young people who are capable of it, for the benefit of the UK economy and for the betterment of mankind?

Charles Clarke: I can give that specific assurance, as I have tried to do all afternoon in terms and quite unequivocally. The report is about raising academic standards, raising educational standards, raising achievement and raising aspiration. I believe that we can do that and, for the reasons that the hon. Lady mentions, we need to make great progress, but she is quite wrong to categorise any diploma idea as a one-size-fits-all approach. In fact, some existing qualifications are much more in that one-size-fits-all model. I do not refer particularly to A-levels or GCSEs; some of the complicated qualifications for hairdressing, bricklaying or whatever have absolutely no application for anything else at all. We need to build skills, talents and creative thinking in a way that allows people to take on things more widely. That is precisely what the framework that the diploma offers will achieve.

BILL PRESENTED

Gambling

Secretary Tessa Jowell, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Peter Hain, Margaret Hodge and Mr. Richard Caborn, presented a Bill to make provision about gambling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 163].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[19th Allotted Day]

Crime

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Davis: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the rising tide of firearms offences that has led to one gun crime being committed every hour; is appalled by the recent spate of gun-related incidents across the country; believes that after seven years the Government has failed to deal with the scourge of guns in towns and cities; further notes the link between gun crime and drugs; deplores the rise in violent crime; resolves that 40,000 more police are needed on the streets to reverse this trend; and believes that local communities should be given greater freedom to direct the efforts of their police force if streets are to be made safer.
	When he was appointed, the Home Secretary said:
	"I enter this job with key priorities in mind: tackling crime, particularly violent crime, and fighting those trafficking in drugs, people or guns."
	Since 1997, gun crime has doubled. It now stands at 10,000 a year—one every hour of every day. Attempted murder with firearms has doubled to more than 1,200 a year—more than three attempted murders every day. Serious wounding with firearms has more than doubled to more than 400 a year—440 was the last estimate—and those last two categories have increased significantly in each of the past six or seven years. All that should be set against a backdrop of burgeoning drug addiction and drug trafficking.
	The motion is principally on gun crime, but as we shall see, hard drugs are often the main cause of gun crime. The Prime Minister, when he was shadow Home Secretary, coined the phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". I am afraid that what we see with gun crime is a Government who are neither. In the past few weeks, we have heard a great deal about gun crime in Nottingham. Gun crime is a major problem in a number of cities—most obviously, Manchester, Birmingham and London—and a possible problem in many others.
	The reason we have called for this debate today is not that gun crime affects every corner of Britain—so far, it does not—but that in some parts of our nation it has spiralled out of control. In my view, the problem can be checked by a series of measures, and in today's debate I propose to put a series of questions to the Home Secretary to determine whether he intends to take those measures. If he implements them, we will give him our full support. First, however, we need to understand the causes, to stop such outbreaks before they become an epidemic that afflicts the whole country, and they might do so because the conditions that create such gun cultures exist in many parts of Britain. If we focus on one city, Nottingham, and on why this attractive, historic, medium-sized city in the heart of England has suddenly faced this assault on the lives of its citizens, we will understand the dangers that many British cities face.
	A few months ago, the chief constable of Nottingham said:
	"Since January 2003, 51 people have been shot, another 164 have been robbed at gunpoint and 300 have been threatened with a firearm."
	In the last weeks, the nation has been horrified by the senseless and apparently random killing of a child. I am sure that the whole House, especially those who were not here earlier, will join me in reiterating the sympathy and condolences that the Home Secretary offered to the parents, relatives and friends of Danielle Beccan. The murder of 14-year-old Danielle is one of a long line of gun crimes in a city where police dealt with more than one shooting a week last year.
	Some of the other killings that have given Nottingham a reputation as England's gun city include that of Brendan Lawrence, a 16-year-old killed in February 2002 as he stepped out of a car close to his home in St. Ann's, and that of Marvyn Bradshaw who was shot dead outside a pub in August 2003. The parents of the man convicted of Mr. Bradshaw's murder were thereafter shot dead. In September 2003, Marian Bates was shot dead at her jewellery shop; two months later, Omar Watson was shot in a barber's shop; and, in May this year, Donzal Munn was shot dead as he sat in his car. Finally, little Danielle Beccan was murdered. We should remember that many of these victims were innocents, caught in the crossfire. It is not just gangsters who are murdered. In the words of one police intelligence briefing:
	"In Nottingham, as in other drug-ridden cities, if you live by the sword, it may not only be you but your family, friends or neighbours that die by it."
	These horrific murders are not the whole story. For every actual murder with a gun, there are 15 more attempted murders. Nationally, there are between 1,200 and 1,300 a year, double the figure in 1997.
	In Nottingham this year, there was the case of Derek Senior who was viciously attacked along with his girlfriend. He gave evidence against the attackers, leading to their conviction. The very next day he was shot three times on his own doorstep. What we are seeing in Nottingham is a culture of enforcement and revenge killings—a culture of vendetta and reprisal; a culture of corruption and intimidation of witnesses; a culture of both contract killing and casual murder; a culture in which the law is failing. That, in turn, has led to a street culture that leads young men to grow up believing that they buy respect by carrying weapons. That creates an environment in which they wear body armour and carry guns—real or replica—in a sort of macho fashion statement. Today, it is estimated that, around the country, there are 20,000 youngsters in gangs dealing in guns and drugs. In Nottingham, a youth of 13 has been found with loaded weapons and another police authority, Manchester, has had to use antisocial behaviour orders to prevent young men from wearing body armour precisely because that leads to violence.
	What creates the conditions for this casual viciousness and the cavalier use of lethal firearms in a manner reminiscent of Chicago in the 1930s rather than an historic English town? The biggest single cause of the explosion in gun crime is the growth of the hard drugs trade. With that trade come drug gangs, drug barons, drug territories and drug wars. Britain now has for the first time more than 1 million class A drug users. In Nottingham, it is estimated that there are 6,000 crack cocaine and heroin addicts. Hard drugs are all too easily available, as is shown by the falling price of drugs on the street. In Nottingham, the prices for class A drugs are said to be some of the cheapest in the country. One can buy crack cocaine for as little as £10 rather than the national average price of £22. The average cost of heroin on the streets of Britain has fallen dramatically—from £80 in 1997 to under £40 today.

Alan Simpson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that drug prices in Nottingham are not a product of anything that its local authority or communities are doing, but that they are entirely due to the supply of drugs to the country as a whole? Although Nottingham has been targeted today, any other city in the country could just as easily be targeted in precisely the same way tomorrow. We must address the question of how drugs get on to the streets in the first place.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman makes an apposite point. I believe that his constituency includes St. Ann's.

Alan Simpson: I lived in the St. Ann's area for most of my life, but it now has the honour of being represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).

David Davis: I apologise to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). Of course the prices in Nottingham have nothing to do with its local authority or any of its local politicians. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) says, they are due to a combination of access to Britain and what criminals do with the drugs when they get here.
	The price of drugs throughout the country is falling because the Government are failing to disrupt supply both at home and abroad. At home, we have what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner rightly calls our "porous borders". It is too easy to smuggle anything into this country, be that people, guns or drugs. Our border controls have been allowed to become too weak.
	The failure abroad has been just as dramatic. The G8 countries nominated the British Government to control and eradicate the drug trade in Afghanistan. The Government accepted the task, but an American anti-narcotic official described the effect of that to me. He said:
	"Last year Afghan heroin flooded the British market. This year, if it is not under control by the October crop, it will flood the world market."
	Regrettably, the Government have yet again failed miserably this year to act effectively against the Afghan drug producers.

Mark Oaten: The shadow Secretary of State will have heard me ask the Home Secretary during Home Office questions what he thought about the establishment of a national border force to manage those problems. Does the shadow Home Secretary share my view that such a body should be put in place?

David Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with that idea. The hon. Gentleman will hear that my speech and questions to the Home Secretary resonate with that suggestion.

David Blunkett: I want to pursue the question of Afghanistan because it is important and we face a major challenge. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with many people in the United States who want to undertake a policy of mass bombing to eradicate the poppy fields as a solution to the problem? We are engaged in a struggle to find a sensible way of providing an alternative viable crop.

David Davis: The Home Secretary is right that the task is not easy, but the Government accepted it and took it on. If they could not do the task, they should not have accepted it. The situation has a material effect on our country and every other country in the world. As the American said, Afghan heroin will flood not only the British market, but the world market.

Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend made a point about the Government's failure to deal with our country's porous borders. Does he agree that one of the main worries about the link between the drugs trade and violent gun crime is the number of Albanians who were involved in serious crime in their homeland and have been able to take over both the vice and drugs trade in our major cities? Does he accept that the heads of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are worried that such people have been able to enter the country by claiming to come from other eastern European countries? Is not the fact that they found that so easy yet another indictment of the Government?

David Davis: To be fair to the Home Secretary, he has identified the fact that the issues are linked, but my hon. Friend is right that senior police are worried about the problem.
	It is not impossible to defeat the scourge of drugs. The Americans have cut addiction among teenagers by 11 per cent. in two years. I am told that that was achieved through a strategy of attacking both supply and demand at the same time. The Home Secretary's policy on controlling demand for drugs was so confused that it led to the resignation of his drugs tsar. The Government's failure to eradicate the supply of drugs and to close porous borders means that there is more availability, lower prices and more demand, and thus more addicts, more drug gangs and more guns, which means that there will probably eventually be more deaths.
	Sadly, if a town or city has a drug problem, it is likely to have a gang problem and eventually a gun problem. The Home Secretary said in an interview last year:
	"We will not tolerate an escalation of the number of guns on our streets."
	Unfortunately, it is not too hard to get a gun. On the streets of Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester and London, it is too easy: £100 or £200 for a pistol, and £1,000 for a sub-machine-gun. Where do they come from? There are essentially three sources for weapons: conversions, smuggled weapons and internet purchases. The first of these is conversions of replica weapons and air guns that enable them to shoot real bullets. Certain air guns, self-contained gas cartridge guns and the so-called Brococks are particularly easy to convert to fire real bullets.
	To be fair, the Government recognised that some time ago. Unfortunately, they then made a complete hash of the policy. They properly acted to make it illegal to own, buy or sell such convertible firearms without a firearms certificate. However, at the time, the chairman of the Home Office's Firearms Consultative Committee told the Home Secretary:
	"Compensation should be paid. Otherwise we are concerned that these proposals will have less effect than they might on persuading those owners to give up these arms".
	I agree with him, but the Government refused, and because of that false economy, there are probably 50,000 convertible firearms at large. If only a tiny percentage are converted and get into criminal hands, the consequences will be disastrous. Action is necessary to stop that happening.

Bill Wiggin: When my right hon. Friend correctly identified the three sources of illegal firearms, he put his finger on the problem for legitimate gun owners, whom he rightly did not include in that group. The Government's treatment of Brocock owners has created a pool of people who did not break the law when they purchased a gun but now find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Does he deplore that as well?

David Davis: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I would not encourage those people to do anything other than hand in their guns. It is important that they do that. Sadly, at the moment, many have not, and that is what we need to deal with.
	Nine out of 10 real weapons used in crimes in the UK are smuggled in from abroad. The end of the Balkan wars is thought to have led to a massive rise in the sale of illegal weapons. The Home Secretary himself said that the Balkans were
	"the gateway to Europe for organised criminals"
	and that
	"Criminal gangs are behind a multi-million pound business smuggling people, drugs and guns"—
	the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Yet firearms continue to be smuggled into the UK. Again, our porous borders are to blame.
	There is also the problem of postal and internet supply of weapons, either real or convertible. The Intelligence and Security Committee raised serious concerns about the number of weapons coming into the country via post from overseas suppliers, the weakness of the screening and the criminal and terrorist dangers. It first raised those concerns two years ago, and in the last debate on this matter, one of its members complained that nothing had been done. Indeed, I believe that he accused the Home Office of being "complacent". The screening of materials entering Britain via postal and courier services is erratic at best and useless at worst. As a result, it is too easy to bring real or convertible weapons into this country. It is long past time that the Home Office took a proper grip on the availability of illegal weapons in this country.
	The increase in drugs, gangs and violent crime has left many police forces overwhelmed. The only way to curb the increase in crime is to provide more policemen. In recent years in Nottingham, violent crime has increased by 37 per cent., but since 1997 the city has been given only 7 per cent. more police—who have largely been paid for by the council tax. For some time, the chief constable in Nottingham has been asking for 1,000 extra police officers, but the Home Office has ignored him. It is by no means the only force in that situation. For example, Manchester, which faces similar problems, needs 3,000 extra police, according to its chief constable.
	This weekend, we discovered that not only has Nottingham been denied extra local police, but that attempts by the National Crime Squad to help it break its gang problem have been stopped, apparently because of a lack of funds or targeting, against the advice of officers on the ground. Action that could have either prevented recent and future attacks or, at the very least, caught their perpetrators has thus been thwarted.
	The Home Secretary must now recognise that a number of our cities are in danger of being overwhelmed by guns and drugs and that the police are finding it difficult to cope. I cite the example of Nottingham not because what has happened there happens everywhere; it does not. I cite it because in a society in which drugs and guns are freely available, it could happen anywhere. We are witnessing a formula for disaster: drug use is getting out of control, drug barons are steadily increasing in strength, and all too often the outcome is violence and gun crime.

Stephen McCabe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Not at this point in my speech.
	For some victims, it is too late. Now, the Government must act to stop the outbreaks of violence turning into an epidemic.
	I have six questions to ask the Home Secretary. First, will he act to increase the physical security of our borders to stop the import of both drugs and guns? Secondly, when will the British Government curb the exploding supply of heroin from Afghanistan? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to pay compensation to those who dispose of convertible weapons, or find some other way of taking the 50,000 convertible guns out of circulation? Fourthly, will he tell the House whether he intends to introduce measures to stop the postal and internet supply of guns? Fifthly, after the recent spate of dreadful gun crimes, will he listen to the chief constables and give at least the hardest-pressed forces the police that they need? Finally, will he ensure that the National Crime Squad is properly resourced and targeted to attack the drug gangs wherever they are in the country and break their insidious assault on our cities?
	Parts of our cities are spiralling out of control. Whole communities live in fear of whatever the next day may bring. It is time—and more than time—for the Home Secretary to act. If he does, we shall support him. If he does not, it will be more than the Conservatives who condemn him: it will be the entire British people.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the record falls in crime achieved by this Government since 1997, recognising that the chances of becoming a victim of crime are now at their lowest level since records began and that gun crime fatalities are falling; recognises that these achievements are the result of record numbers of police officers on the streets, reinforced for the first time by Community Support Officers; welcomes the Government's achievements in reducing anti-social behaviour which has blighted the lives of too many of the most vulnerable people; and supports the Government's continuing programme of action to tackle crime, including the recruitment of 25,000 Community Support Officers and wardens, the provision of extra prison capacity and tougher penalties for those who break the law."
	I am disappointed. I came here this afternoon expecting a real battle. I expected to be savaged with real facts and figures, unknown to us, that would once again reveal a truly incisive Tory party policy that gives us real answers for the future. Instead, I have heard made-up statistics, such as 1 million people being on class A drugs. One in 50 people in this country—one in 40 adults—are not on class A drugs.
	The actual number of problematic regular class A drug users is 280,000. That is why we have a policy to double the number of people in treatment over the next two and a half years, and why the number of people in treatment increased by 125 per cent. between April and September this year. The money is now flowing through and the treatment places are being created. The drugs intervention programme in the most affected areas, including Nottingham, is putting targeted money—millions of pounds—into localities throughout the country. In Nottingham's case, it has been doing so since last April. That programme, linked with additional policing, with the intelligence model of policing and of course with the development of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and proper interventions by the existing National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service, is essential.
	We do not dispute what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said about the growing problem of gun crime linked to organised criminality linked to the drugs industry. That is self-evident, which is why we have and are continuing to put so much resource into drugs, why we have decided to pull together and expand the agencies that deal with serious organised crime, and why the Labour Government set up the NCIS, developed the NCS and began to get a grip on an international problem. As I was discussing with Interior Ministers in Italy this morning, in the case of crack, we have to deal with trafficking from south America. We have to work together with the other countries that are desperately affected to break that trade. In the case of the heroin that reaches our streets, we have to deal with Afghanistan and the trade through Turkey. There is no dispute about that. How to tackle the problem, however, is the $2 billion question. Bombing the poppy fields of Afghanistan is not the answer, as it would allow the Taliban to recruit people in those marginalised areas and offer individuals whose livelihood had been destroyed an alternative living. A more sophisticated approach is needed. When the new Afghan Government are in place, it will be possible to do the things that President Karzai, whom I have met three times in the past year alone to discuss this issue, has been attempting to achieve against the odds. His Administration have been fighting a battle against terrorists on the fringes of Afghanistan, stabilising the country as a whole, preparing for an election that people said would never happen, taking part in that election, establishing a new Government and working with us.
	We must, however, tackle supply routes in neighbouring countries and through Turkey. The Foreign Secretary and I will, of course, ensure, that any transition by Turkey into the European Union, and even the first stage of reconsideration of its application in 2007, is based on its willingness to work with us. Along with France and other countries, we have put resources into the Balkans, where there are crucial supply routes. This is not about picking up heroin only at our ports; it is about stopping it crossing the continent and reaching Britain.

Bill Wiggin: If the Home Secretary is doing such a marvellous job, why is the price falling?

David Blunkett: I did not say that I was doing a marvellous job, but I am glad to receive the accolade. Organisations in the UK and across Europe are working with us to revamp and improve Europol—another issue that I discussed with Interior Ministers in the past 24 hours—which is crucial if we are to tackle the problem, but the price of the world supply, not just the supply to the UK, fluctuates. [Interruption.] Well, we can make a graph from the statistics, perhaps not this afternoon, but I am happy to send the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) a copy later. Seizures of both heroin and crack cocaine have increased, with tonnages going up dramatically. However, it is a fact that the price has continued to drop. About three years ago, two dozen people in Glasgow died within a short period because there was a temporary cut in the heroin supply and prices rose. A contaminated supply led to those tragic deaths.
	We therefore need a more intelligent approach to the problem. We must block the supply routes and change the nature of the crop, so that the producers can survive. We must work with our partners in Europe, if I may use a term that the Opposition never like to hear, because we can break supply lines and undermine organised gangs only if we operate together. Project Reflex, which will be incorporated in the Serious Organised Crime Agency, has done a good job in further disrupting the supply. We can, of course, continue to do so only by improving surveillance at our borders. Outside wartime, we have never had tighter border controls. No one ever envisaged that we would move our border controls to France.

Bill Wiggin: We have only done so in theory.

David Blunkett: No, it is not theory at all. Our border controls have moved to France, and clandestine entry has been reduced by 65 per cent. When Customs and Excise is divided and Customs becomes part of the new agency, that will allow us to co-ordinate surveillance at French ports. I shall shortly announce further measures at additional French ports. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), has signed an agreement with the Belgian Minister of the Interior to improve and co-ordinate our response with that country, and it is obviously important to do so across northern Europe. That is the backdrop to the problem. This afternoon, however, we have heard nothing but doom and gloom from the Opposition. I do not dispute any of their statistics, except the figure of 1 million drug users; but instead of making positive proposals to tackle the problem, we heard a litany of problems in Nottingham, and how what is going wrong there is indicative of a total collapse.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, just as we should be going after drug dealers, there is a problem with those who deal in guns? Although the vast majority of people in this country who deal in firearms do so legitimately, there does seem to be a problem. When we look at how people trade internationally, we can see that weapons can even be exported legitimately and then re-imported as different types of firearm, which then get on to the streets. I was surprised that the Opposition did not pick that up. Would my right hon. Friend care to talk about that issue, because it is a key problem?

David Blunkett: The issue is complicated because quite a lot of the guns that come into our country are not formally imported. Many of them are adapted from weapons that are already here. Some are part of the historic export trade of this country, which goes back a very long way. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats cannot remember far enough back to a time when they were responsible for any of this, although my city was built on exporting weaponry in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Liberal Democrats had a smell of office. We and the official Opposition need to examine our consciences and think about who we have exported to over the years and how we get the exports back in all sorts of different ways.
	I take the point, and it is important that we are on the ball when tracking what is happening, which is why the intelligence-based approach is so crucial and why the National Criminal Intelligence Service and its successor are vital to stop what is going on.

Stephen McCabe: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to track guns, try to control them and take them out of circulation. The point that the shadow Home Secretary made earlier interested me. He seemed to think that the key element was compensation. Apart from the fact that those are resources that could be used in the war on crime, is it not the case that in South Africa when compensation was paid it led to the importation of more guns so that compensation could be claimed?

David Blunkett: Regrettably, that is true and there is always someone with an eye to a quick buck, especially if the Government are paying. I do not know where the resources to compensate the alleged 50,000 owners would come from. I suspect it would come from the money for the additional police officers requested today, including officers for Nottinghamshire. I will come on to that later. We cannot pay people for doing what we expect them to do under the law.
	The amnesty that we had 18 months ago was the most successful ever. Some 44,000 weapons, some of them very serious, and more than a million items of ammunition were handed in. It was a great success—a greater success than after the tragedy in 1996. It was a success because a lot of people joined together: church groups, Afro-Caribbean community groups, young people's groups and people giving concerts. The movement of people who are now prepared to help to change the culture is encouraging. As I said in Home Office questions, that means that the communities that are most affected, and affecting, will be part of the solution. If that can happen in Nottingham, as it has in other parts of the country, we will be able to build optimism.
	We do not want to frighten people to death, which is why I support what the head of the police standards unit, Paul Evans, said about getting things in proportion. If we scare people—if they are worried and concerned—the chance that they will come together and do something is diminished rather than increased. What we need is not doom and gloom and a negative response; we need to address the true facts, be prepared to come up with sensible policies and work together to implement them. Do not take my word for it; take the word of someone who has a lot of experience of dealing with the issue, who said we should stop indulging in
	"the national passion for denigrating good news".
	That was said by a Home Secretary—the current Leader of the Opposition—in September 1995. He should know because, when he first took over as Home Secretary, gun crime rocketed. [Interruption.] Yes, it did. It then came down.
	I am happy to deal with true statistics. I have no problem with addressing the reality, but I am against myth and things being made up, such as when people go down to Brixton and pretend that there are no police available, that crime has risen, and that things have gone drastically wrong and the Government are to blame for not putting the police in. If there is to be no hiding place and no wriggle room—or whatever the term might be—for any Conservative politician, good luck to them. How long does wriggle room last? Does it last 24 hours or 12 months? Take the words of the previous shadow Home Secretary, who said just 12 months ago in October 2003:
	". . . back in June, I saw Inspector Sean Wilson and his team reclaiming the streets for local people. Burglary is down, robbery is down, graffiti wiped away, abandoned cars towed away. Central Brixton is a safer, happier place than it was a couple of years ago. What made the difference? I'll tell you: real and sustained neighbourhood policing, bobbies on the beat."
	That was said at the Tory party conference on 7 October 2003 and was contradicted a year later by the Leader of the Opposition.
	We do not even have to go that far back. On 6 October this year, a question was asked about the commencement of the Conservative policy for more police—whether we will ever get 1,000 more officers in Nottinghamshire, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has just asked me to affirm that I will do immediately. I cannot do it immediately, so I will not promise to do it. It would be a silly thing to do. There would be no wriggle room. We are in government, not in opposition, so we would not be able to wriggle anywhere. We will not promise 1,000 more officers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire immediately.
	When people get on television programmes on the same day—6 October—they need to be very sure what they are saying. I want the House to hear what two Front-Bench spokesmen said on the same day. The shadow Home Secretary was challenged about funding for the extra 40,000 police offices, which would help him give Nottinghamshire 1,000—that is slightly disproportionate, but I am sure that Nottinghamshire would get 1,000 police officers from somewhere—and he said that he thought that it would take about a billion pounds in the first Parliament. He said that the Opposition were talking about 5,000 officers a year. We do not dispute that. That is 5,000 officers a year to get to an overall figure of 20,000—not 40,000. Those extra officers in the first Parliament would cost around a billion pounds, but it would not get them to 40,000 officers, because, unless the Opposition plan to extend the franchise, if they do ever get elected, they will have a maximum of only five years, not eight years, to do it.
	The shadow Home Secretary talked about the billion pounds being lopped off the nationality and immigration budget, which he said he would be able to halve in the first four years. Actually, he could not do so because we have already built into our forward plans, as part of the spending review, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of reductions in the figure that he proposes to halve. We have already allocated that money for the extra community support officers, police officers, technology and investment in CCTV that we are undertaking. The real dilemma is that, having taken a billion pounds out, where are the border controls and the extra people to stop the drugs and guns coming in which the right hon. Gentleman demanded this afternoon? People are needed to do those things, and those people have to be paid.
	What we have is a billion pounds being lopped off the nationality, immigration and border control budget, a pledge to meet half the commitment that the Conservatives have made for 40,000 extra police officers, a demolition of the promises made this afternoon to increase border controls and stop people getting in, and the honest words of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). In an appearance on News 24 on the same day, she said that the Conservatives would be "held accountable" and deliver, and would
	"start recruiting those police officers immediately".
	How can one start recruiting police officers immediately if it will take a Parliament to raise the money from cutting the immigration and nationality budget at the same time as increasing border controls? [Interruption.] When does immediately not mean immediately? It is when a Tory Front-Bench spokesman says it. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham so that she can tell the House what immediately means, and put me straight.

Cheryl Gillan: Immediately means immediately. If the Home Secretary thinks that it is outwith the wit of man to place an advertisement or ask his officials to place advertisements to recruit more police officers, I do not know what he is doing in his job.

David Blunkett: It is not about recruiting police officers; we are recruiting them. We have recruited 10,000 over the past two years. We have a budget to retain those numbers and invest in 25,000 community support officers. We have identified the money, but promising to raise the number of recruits by 5,000 a year, plus everything else that the Tory party has promised, including 20,000 extra prison places in their first Parliament—there is no budget for that either—is different. If they are promising 5,000 officers over and above what we have allocated and promising to provide them immediately, they must say where the money will come from. Keep on wriggling, and we will keep on governing.

Roger Gale: The Home Secretary says that he has just recruited 10,000 new police officers. Does he recognise the very real anger felt by ordinary coppers on the street about the amount of time that those 10,000 officers and their colleagues have to spend filling in forms?

David Blunkett: Absolutely. When the Conservative Government of 20 years ago introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the PACE codes, the amount of paperwork legitimately shot up. There is a tendency for all Governments to demand extra statistical information. We are asked at the Dispatch Box to do so. We are asked whether we can find out from any part of the country—[Interruption.] It seems that we have returned to Nottingham, despite the fact that I gave the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden a perfectly reasonable answer earlier. [Interruption.] I was not able to give the figures on drive-by shootings, because we do not collect them. I was asked to comment on what the National Crime Squad had done in terms of operational matters, but I could not do so as I did not have the statistic to hand.
	The more statistical information the Opposition ask us for and the more we are asked to break it down, the more we have to ask somebody to collect it. It does not drop from the sky. We cannot put on a database data that we do not have. We cannot disaggregate a database that we do not have. There is a challenge to reduce the amount of paperwork that is being demanded nationally and locally, and we are doing that. I have set up a gateway blockage involving all ranks of the police service so that no form or data requirement is put in place without the clearance of that gateway.
	We have also introduced fixed penalty notices. Some 20,000 have already been levied, which is a terrific boon for constables who do not have to take people down to the station and go through the process of arrest. We are spending £1 billion on the criminal justice information technology system, so that the police can at last use technology to tap into palm-top computers that go straight into the mainframe computer, available through the criminal justice system, instead of writing something on a pad, going back to the station and writing it in a book and then tapping it themselves into a computer, as I saw them doing when I became Home Secretary. That transformation in technology includes the introduction of Airwave, allowing police officers to communicate properly with each other and the station. There are also new methods of ensuring that they do not have to wait in court. [Interruption.] I am just telling hon. Members the answer to the question that I was asked: what about getting more police officers on the beat and in the community, doing the job? That is precisely what we are going to do.

Patrick Mercer: The Home Secretary talks about the difficulties of police recruitment, and I am sure that he is right. We have some wonderful police officers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, but the fact is that, ever since I have been elected, we have heard promises about extra officers, and all that has come forward is a handful of CSOs, none of whom can deal with drive-by shootings or gun crime. When will he honour his promises and restore the morale of Nottinghamshire constabulary?

David Blunkett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Nottinghamshire police would like to come to me—I challenge him to ask Steve Green, the chief constable, to affirm this—to ask to go back to the situation that we inherited, when there had been a drop of 1,100 in police numbers over the previous four years? [Interruption.] Oh yes there had been. Police numbers were tumbling exponentially—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much extraneous noise from the Opposition Benches.

David Blunkett: In the words of Sergeant Jones, they do not like it up them. [Hon. Members: "Corporal."] Goodness me, I have promoted him. I would rather get the rank of sergeant and corporal wrong in a fictional television programme than I would statistics about the number of police. There was a drop in police numbers up to 1997. They were dropping like a stone, and we have restored the amount; we are now 13,000 up on 1997. There was a drop in Nottinghamshire, and we have restored the force and are expanding it. There was no street robbery initiative, but we have put millions of pounds into Nottingham over the past two and a half years. There was no drugs intervention programme in Nottingham, but there is now, and it is beginning to work.

David Heath: As the Home Secretary knows, the Liberal Democrats acknowledge the increases that are now appearing in some of our constabularies, but we are getting near the stage at which either he or, more worryingly, the Deputy Prime Minister will again be deciding on capping for police authorities. Before we get to that point, can he say whether he believes that any single police authority has sufficient police for local needs at this moment?

David Blunkett: Not a force in the country has the number of police officers that it would like, in a world where money is of no object in being able to deliver the service. We cannot promise that, and I do not think that the official Opposition, even with Mickey Mouse figures, are promising it. Surely the Liberal Democrats are not going to make such a promise. Surely it is not the case that whatever a police chief requires in order to say that he can do his job properly, the Liberal Democrats will promise it to him. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene to tell me the answer?

David Heath: I am happy to intervene, as we have already set out our police proposals. The Home Secretary knows that we have a figure, but I am asking him whether he will countermand the views of local people, as he did last year by nominating certain police authorities, as to the level of policing they want in their local communities.

David Blunkett: I was very pleased that we did not override local people in terms of police authorities and reduce this year's budget.
	The Liberal Democrat figures, with which I am of course familiar—they include 10,000 extra officers—are complete mythology. The Liberal Democrats say that they will fund the changes by not using the money for ID cards. However, ID cards will be paid for on the back of introducing biometrics and a clean database underpinning them for passports and visas. As a consequence, people will pay a charge that is additional to their passport increase. How on earth can police officers be funded from the Passport and Records Agency? How can the UK Passport Service raise the same money without delivering the service and also pass that money over to the police service instead? It is simply Mickey Mousedom. That is the end of the 10,000 police officers from the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] Do not argue with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), because it is not worth it.
	Let us return to the challenge laid down this afternoon by the shadow Home Secretary: how can we further reduce gun crime—we have stabilised it—and deaths from gun crime?

Mark Francois: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I have been giving way all evening.

Mark Francois: Not to me.

David Blunkett: I do not want anyone to burst into tears, so I shall give way.

Mark Francois: I thank the Home Secretary for his great courtesy in giving way. Does he agree that the officers deployed on the street in the busiest periods—Friday and Saturday nights—are a combination of regular police officers and special constables? Will he concede that, because the number of special constables has plummeted by more than 40 per cent. under this Government, when regulars and specials are combined, in many parts of the country fewer officers go out on patrol than did so in 1997?

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman appears to think that specials are full time. [Interruption.] The matter is simple—one must aggregate the full-time equivalent. I favour specials not only because they are good for policing, but because they are part of civil renewal, active citizenship and protecting workplaces and communities, which is why we are working with employers to get a joint policy of release from work and volunteering in the community. We will work to get a better deal and better training for specials, many of whom have joined the police service because they want to become full-time officers.
	The combination of 13,000 extra full-time equivalent police officers and 4,000 community support officers is more than equal to the drop in specials over the past seven years—it is quadruple the size—and it is nonsense to pretend anything else. The street robbery programme has invested additional money over and above the police grant in those areas most affected by street crime, which includes low-level thuggery.
	While I am on the subject, let us put the Opposition's duplicity about the British crime survey on the record. According to the British crime survey, crime dropped by 5 per cent. last year and has fallen by 30 per cent. since 1997. The Opposition say that the British crime survey is rubbish, but it was their survey of preference for years after they set it up in 1981—Margaret Thatcher said that, and, in their bunker, the modern Conservatives are returning to Margaret Thatcher.
	The British crime survey has been revered throughout the world for 23 years, in which time it has used the same methodology, but widened the sample to show what is happening to crime across the country. A recording change in 1998 and the new national recording standard in 2001 dramatically changed the amount of recorded crime, including violent crime. Reported and recorded violent crime rose from 62 to 77 per cent. over that period, which more than cancels out the increase in recorded crime between 1997 and the present day.

Eric Joyce: I do not know what my right hon. Friend thinks, but I think that the Tories are all over the place. On 12 October, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney-General, said:
	"It is certainly true that crime rates have been coming down."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 50WH.]

David Blunkett: I am glad that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that, because honesty is important. If something is wrong, say so; if there is a problem with drugs in our country, say so; and if gun crime causes difficulties for young people and our communities, we must address it. However, it is no good saying that crime has increased when it has come down; it is no good saying that police numbers are lower, when they are massively higher; and it is no good saying, "We do not want community support officers," before writing to Ministers to demand more community support officers.
	There is no point in asking for more statistics before demanding that the Home Secretary's powers should be reduced to merely allocating a budget and setting strategic objectives. The shadow Home Secretary said that in his speech to the Tory party conference, and the policy also appeared last year in a Conservative document. One either does or does not want a proactive Home Office that bears down on crime, that takes spreading best practice seriously, that uses the police standards unit and the inspectorate to ensure that we can overcome failures, where they occur, that has the data to compare like with like and that directs the Serious Organised Crime Agency, rather than being completely hands off, as the Opposition demand.
	Either one wants a Home Secretary who is held to account at the Dispatch Box and who has something to be held to account for, or one wants a Home Secretary who has a fantastically easy life and who simply says, "I have left it to the 43 forces. I have set the budget and gone out to lunch," which is an exact description of Tory party policy. The Tory party can go out to lunch next year, the year after and the year after that. When we publish our strategic plans, the Tories can go to America, they can toddle in from lunch an hour late when we debate justice and home affairs and they can take themselves wherever they like.
	We need a vigorous Opposition who are intelligent and thoughtful and who act as a Government in waiting with statistics that add up, budgets that make sense and policies that address real issues. However, everyone knows—Conservative Members know this—that they will not be in government after the next general election, which is why we are acting, investing and thinking seriously about Britain's problems. We are mobilising Britain's forces to take pride in our country and do the job.

Mark Oaten: The Home Secretary was unfair on the shadow Home Secretary, who presented a reasonable case on firearms. I do not always agree with the shadow Home Secretary, but I found it difficult to disagree with him this time, particularly on the six questions that he put to the Home Secretary. I disagreed with him on some issues, which I shall address later, but the Home Secretary's approach was unhelpful.
	We could argue endlessly about whether crime has gone up or down in this country. I agree with the Home Secretary that an overall drop in crime has occurred, which is welcome, but none of us welcomes the 6 million crimes that take place in this country. Whether or not a slight dip has occurred in one area, far too many crimes take place, and we have seen a big increase in the most serious crimes—particularly gun crimes.
	Behind those statistics, actual individuals are victims of crime, and I have talked to some of then in the past week. In Taunton, for example, I met an estate agent, Mark Jeans, who was stabbed six weeks ago. Fortunately, his life was saved because the knife went into his ribs, and the only item that was taken was a packet of cigarettes. Last week, a friend of mine was mugged in London—a brick was pushed into his face in order to take his mobile phone. In my constituency, 70 people's cars were scraped and had their wing mirrors pushed in. When we discuss the figures, it is important to remember what crimes mean for individuals.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Taunton. One reason crimes occur in Taunton is that the majority of police in Somerset must go into Bristol, because they are part of Avon and Somerset police. That reduces police numbers in Somerset, but the Home Secretary consistently refuses to address the issue.

Mark Oaten: I agree that visible policing is one issue that concerns the public. In the area that I saw, the police station was round the corner and CCTV cameras were all around, so many of the precautions that we like to see to stop crime were in place, but I obviously take the wider and general point.
	Let me say a few words about firearms, which the shadow Home Secretary mainly focused on, although his motion goes wider. The very large increase in such crimes—from just under 5,000 in 1997 to 10,000 in the last set of recorded figures—is troubling. Generally speaking, the pattern of firearm crime could be described as "bad versus bad"—organised crime carried out by individuals who are involved in the crime itself and in the associated gun traffic. The sadness, as we have heard through the examples given, is that innocent people often get involved in such crime.
	Recent gun crime statistics suggest that not only those involved in drugs and organised crime perpetrate gun crimes, as petty criminals are starting to carry guns as well. That is a worrying trend, because it means that gun crime is spreading into areas beyond those that we have seen in the past.
	I agree with some of the arguments advanced by the shadow Home Secretary, but I wish to raise one concern. The Government are considering the whole question of firearms legislation. Like many hon. Members, particularly those who represent rural constituencies, I have received several representations from those opposed to changing the law to cover individuals who hold guns for the purposes of sport. I am sure that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community will be sensitive to that in carrying out the consultation. We are right to express our worries about firearms, but individuals in rural constituencies who have a legitimate reason for carrying guns do not want a further extension of legislation in that area.

David Blunkett: One of the reasons I was more robust than the hon. Gentleman would have liked with the shadow Home Secretary is that it is a little aggravating to hear someone advocating policies about removing guns from people when their party voted against the legislation on handguns. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point about sensitivity in considering such issues, but every time that they are raised in this House we hear contradictions from Members with a particular interest in maintaining the status quo: that is why they have been so difficult to handle.

Mark Oaten: I entirely recognise the Home Secretary's dilemma. Without wishing to open up a set of arguments against me, there is sometimes an obvious contradiction in being a liberal in such matters, because on the one hand we ask for legislation but on the other we tend not to want the state to over-legislate. It is a balancing act.
	Given that gun crimes generally happen in urban and city areas rather than rural areas, we should consider legislation for different parts of the country that reflects where the main problems lie. I hope that, when the Government undertake their consultation, they will consider striking a balance between rural and urban communities in controlling firearms.

Stephen McCabe: It does not make much sense to say that guns are focused in particular areas and assume that criminals will not travel. That is a strange suggestion. Surely—this would not affect sportsmen and those with other legitimate needs—we could say that a person must have an exceptionally strong need for a gun. We could ask why someone needs to buy 100 starting pistols or has a collection of replica guns that can be converted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention is meant to be more singular than plural.

Mark Oaten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to some extent on replica guns, because legitimate questions need to be asked in that respect. However, my point about different parts of the country is not about whether criminals can move around it but whether conditions should be placed on having a gun in a particular area.
	Liberal Democrats support the establishment of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—SOCA—as a good and sensible measure, but will the Minister confirm that one of its responsibilities will be intelligence gathering on gun crime? That is not in the business plan for Customs and Excise, and it would be useful to know whether it will be one of SOCA's business plan objectives.
	We have heard about the problem of purchasing fake guns on the internet. I would add to that the issue of eBay, where I have seen how remarkably easy it is to get into sites that sell guns. We must consider how to handle that as eBay grows in popularity. I should have thought that the people who run it would be amenable to a dialogue about how they introduce measures to control the situation.
	In that context, I want to restate my concern about border control, which the Home Secretary dismissed at Home Office questions by saying that serious co-operation would be taking place through SOCA. However, it remains the case that where three bodies—Customs and the immigration and police authorities—have responsibility there is a danger of overlapping. That is not just my idea, or one for which the shadow Home Secretary has some warmth; it was the subject of a firm recommendation by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and has the support of the police. There is merit in reconsidering the issue, perhaps in a couple of years' time when SOCA finds that it needs particular help in those areas.
	I want to move away from the issue of firearms to that of crime in general, which is the subject of the Conservative motion.

Nigel Jones: Did my hon. Friend see last night's "Panorama" programme on the subject of blade crime, which concluded that a quarter of school children now take knives to school for protection and that probably only a third of those injured by knives report their cases to the police? Does he think that we need a review on blade crimes as well?

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, particularly given his own experiences. I did not see the "Panorama" programme, but clearly the number of knife crimes is a major cause for concern. The situation is different from that which applies to firearms, but some of the same issues apply—for example, the ability to purchase such knives and the way in which their sale over the internet is managed. There is a strong argument for considering how we should put such controls in place.
	We have had a small debate about the police and police numbers. The police clearly play a front-line role in acting as a deterrent. It is almost inevitable that in the next six months, in the run-up to a general election, we will get involved in a bidding war between the three parties as to who can put the most police on the streets. I try to avoid that, but it is impossible because the question is asked so many times.

Joan Humble: rose—

Brian Cotter: rose—

Mark Oaten: Let me just explain our position, then Members can cross-examine me on it if they wish.
	In my judgment, going beyond 10,000 police would be unrealistic. The Home Secretary does not portray our funding figures accurately. We believe that providing 10,000 police and 20,000 community support officers in the course of a Parliament is an effective way forward.

Joan Humble: We have heard a lot of discussion about police and community support officers and community wardens, but other people are involved in reducing crime. I met some of them a couple of weeks ago in Fleetwood—they are the individuals who help people with drug and alcohol abuse problems. We need to take a multi-agency approach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing that by targeting the small group of people who, through their drug abuse, contribute to a disproportionately large amount of crime?

Mark Oaten: I am pleased that I accepted the hon. Lady's intervention, because I could not agree more. The Government have been at their best in relation to such policies, particularly in youth justice, where I have witnessed some of the exciting schemes that are taking place. If the Government are brave enough to extend that beyond the youth area to work closely with probation services, that will be a creative way in which to tackle crime.
	We made the judgment that 10,000 police is a realistic approach to take over the next five years.

Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the numbers but how the police are deployed that is important? I had a meeting in my local police station recently and I was reminded that some incidents give rise to eight hours of paperwork.

Mark Oaten: That is an excellent point. The Home Secretary listed some ways in which he has tried to cut the time spent on paperwork, but whenever I speak to police that is still one of the first subjects that they bring up. A police officer in Devon last week told me that following every incident of domestic violence to which they are called, they have to fill in a matrix of 17 questions about every individual in the house. He told me that following an incident that was merely a domestic row and involved no abuse, the police were at the scene for only two minutes, but the process of filling in the matrix took about three hours. We should give the front-line police the ability to make a professional judgment on whether it is really necessary to fill in such forms.

David Drew: The problem is not only what the state asks the police to do but the fact that if the procedures are not carried out properly—regardless of whether they are laborious—a defence solicitor can point that out and the case may be dismissed. Any police officer knows that that is the dilemma.

Mark Oaten: Absolutely. We have talked before about our increasingly litigious society and the blame culture. Perhaps we need to allow police officers to get it wrong on occasions, as the price for giving them some discretion. The problem is that, in some sensitive cases, the consequences of getting it wrong can be tragic. I accept that it is a difficult balance.
	I found it interesting that the shadow Home Secretary chose to ignore the part of the motion referring to an extra 40,000 police and to concentrate mainly on gun crime. We have a problem with the 40,000, because we do not think that it is frank or fair to talk of such a figure. The Home Secretary said that the figure is more likely to be 20,000 over a Parliament.
	The idea that we can achieve the 40,000 figure by having some sort of offshore processing for asylum seekers has not been properly explained to the House. We have tried to identify the island before, and offered to bring in atlases, and now we are told that an offshore process has been developed, but we need many more details about how it will happen, where the funds will come from and what evidence there is that it would be cheaper than the existing system. The question was asked earlier whether it would be possible to begin recruitment immediately, and I wonder whether it would be possible to move immediately to an offshore processing system. There are many gaps in the Conservatives' proposals, and I believe that they did themselves an injustice in coming up with a 40,000 figure that, in the rigour of a general election campaign, will be seen by the public as unrealistic.
	Our police need to be more visible, and one way of achieving that is to start giving them more technology. There have been real breakthroughs in technology in some forces, and some police officers have the same kind of kit that I have—a mobile phone and a palmtop, and perhaps a mobile fingerprinting kit—but that is quite rare, and we need to do much more to give them technology that will enable them to be on the street much longer. If one calls out the AA or the RAC, the patrols that arrive will have more kit than the average policeman on the street. The Government would be wise to invest more in that area.
	The Home Secretary briefly mentioned that he wants to do something to tackle the problem of the amount of police time wasted in magistrates courts, which would certainly be welcome. I hope that the Minister can say more about that initiative. Far too many police officers waste mornings outside courtrooms not being called and finding that other professionals asked to give evidence are called before them. We need to change the rota planning.

Parmjit Dhanda: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most effective things that the police could do in working with magistrates is to implement an antisocial behaviour order on conviction, as that has a serious effect on low-level crimes? If an ASBO is active on someone when they come out after a short sentence, there is not much bureaucracy involved, because it has all been completed already to get the conviction in the first place.

Mark Oaten: My point about magistrates courts concerned police having their time wasted when being called to give evidence, and I hope that we will hear from the Home Office about plans to reduce that. Clearly, ASBOs can be a useful tool, which police and magistrates can work through together, but my experience is that other measures also need to be in place to change the individual's pattern of behaviour over the longer term.
	The final part of the motion concerns the need for policing to be more local and for the community to have more say and more direct involvement in what the police do. I was very disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary did not expand on that point, because there is an interesting debate to be had among all three parties on what we mean by localism, and where we are going. The previous shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), talked about sheriffs and elected individuals, and the Home Secretary has a consultation paper out on the concept of more directly elected bodies.
	As a democrat, I am extremely hostile to such ideas, and not, as one might expect, keen on direct election for those who would run the police. There is not a great appetite out there for individuals to vote in elections, as we have seen in both general and local council elections. The idea that people on a rundown estate with severe problems are going to rush out to take part in this is not entirely convincing. The danger is that, on a low turnout, a set of individuals will vote with particular ideas that may not chime with our own about how the police should be run or, worse still, BNP-style candidates may run successfully in such areas. That could lead to a headlong collision with a chief constable who is given orders that he or she finds impossible to implement, but that will be hard to say no to, given the democratic mandate. I advise the other two parties to tread carefully in this area, because there could be damaging consequences.
	As the Government have acknowledged, tackling crime involves being tough on its causes, too. The Government have not done enough on that. I would like to have talked more in this debate about their prison policy and tackling reoffending, and about education and retraining to make punishment work and reduce crime committed by individuals who have already been to prison. We need to tackle that, as reoffending rates are far too high. I would like to have been able to explore issues about community punishment, on which the Government have some good ideas, including their concept of prison without bars. We could do more with tagging and with giving the community a say in sentencing.
	I hope that we can step back a little from knocking the figures back and forth and acknowledge that there are some complex issues. Given what the shadow Home Secretary said on firearms, we will support the motion, despite the 40,000 figure—the Conservatives have made some positive suggestions on firearms.

Alan Simpson: I do not represent the area in which Danielle Beccan was killed—it is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—but I lived most of my adult life in St. Ann's. For many years, I was the chair of governors of the school that Danielle attended, and all my children went to that school. I now represent the adjoining constituency, which includes areas such as the Meadows, Radford and Lenton.
	Such places are often caricatured as areas of conflict, in which gangs of young people are permanently at violent odds with each other. Indeed, I regret some of the past week's press coverage, which has painted the city that has become my home in terms that I often do not recognise. I walked around the streets in many of those communities over the weekend, and talked to families that I have known for decades. The people who make up Nottingham are kind, decent and generous, and the city needs to be understood and recognised as comprising such people.

Parmjit Dhanda: I do not mean to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow—he is making a very good point about his home city—but as a former resident in his constituency, I wanted to endorse his comments. I spent five very happy years in Lenton, at the university of Nottingham. Nottingham is one of the most sought-after places to live in the entire country, and like many others I spent some of the happiest times of my life in that city. I commend everything that my hon. Friend says about Nottingham.

Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that intervention, which illustrates one of the reasons why, on coming to Nottingham as a student, I stayed and have never wanted to leave. But I have to recognise that some of the things that families were telling me over the weekend paint a rather different picture of life in the inner city since my children's school years. Indeed, I have been confronted in a stark way with the huge changes that have taken place since my own childhood.
	At the age of 14, it was easy to identify the many young males aged between 13 and 15 who cycled around estates delivering vegetables or groceries. Yet families tell me that the sight that they most frequently readily identify now is of young teenage men age cycling around delivering drugs. In Nottingham, such kids are known as "shotters", because they deliver shots of drugs on behalf of drug dealers. The process is fairly simple. They stick the consignment of crack cocaine or heroin between their buttocks, get on their bike and deliver the package to whomever the dealer has specified. Some £30 a day is the going rate, which is much better than the pay for delivering vegetables, so one can see the financial attraction. The process begins with a simple and innocent set of instructions: "Just deliver this package to the fellow on the corner." As a result, kids are being drawn into this world.
	The families told me that they want us to stand with them in support of strategies that intervene at every level of that process, and preferably long before the drugs reach the kids on the streets. Those families also said that we need to understand that the same "benevolent" dealers also have a pretty unscrupulous and exploitative record in terms of their kindnesses towards children. These people offer children access to crack cocaine, and such "kindness" very quickly gives way to a set of demands that draw children into prostitution. We are confronted as much with the cynical and cruel theft of childhood—the theft of a generation's childhood—as we are with the problem of hard crime and hardened criminals. In many ways, the biggest challenge that we face is the theft of the security in which children can play on, and live in, estates.
	Communities in every part of the city are saying that we have to find ways to separate their children's lives from the activities of those who deal in drugs and guns. That will be difficult. We already know that, in addition to those involved in shotting, some kids are being asked to stash drugs. I am told that very rarely are the main dealers of drugs and guns found in possession of them. Parents are terrified that, unbeknown to them, their children are being asked, "Will you just stash this somewhere safe? Don't open it; just put it somewhere safe and you'll be looked after." We have to understand that in getting people to come forward, we must make it clear that, however tough we are going to be on those caught with guns, we will not be tough on the kids who are inadvertently being drawn into this world at the sharpest end of all. Our intervention should constitute almost a rescue mission, to ensure that the children who are pulled out of those broader networks are not criminalised at our first point of contact with them.
	We need also to address another complaint that was regularly made to me over the weekend. Why, I was asked, are guns are so easily available? I am told that it is possible to rent a gun for £200. The deal is that if it is returned unused, a £100 refund is given. Families in these communities are telling us that we—as a Government and as a society—have to prevent our entering an era in which guns are as easy to rent as videos. We must tackle that absurdity at the level at which we interrupt the supply of drugs and guns.
	I have a number of specific proposals about the strategies that we need to employ to deal comprehensively with the problem. We need partnerships between Government and national agencies, between Government and local authorities, and between local authorities and local communities. People tell me that the first thing that they want from the Government is additional resources to allow us in Parliament to be confident in our ability to intervene on the supply of drugs and guns to this country. They repeated the message that the easiest way to take guns off the streets is to prevent them from getting there in the first place. They want the Government to ensure that sufficient resources are deployed to make life tough for dealers in drugs and guns.
	In Nottinghamshire, pressure is being brought to bear through the "More Cops for Notts" campaign. That is an issue in its own right and I do not want to distance myself from it, but in some respects it is separate from the specific issues that the Opposition have raised today. I would love to believe in my heart that an extra 1,000 police on the streets of Nottingham that day would have saved Danielle Beccan's life. Can I in all honesty say that? No, I cannot, and it does not help if I pretend otherwise.
	We have to get the resources to target dealers of guns and drugs. There might be a case for deploying additional police, but if we do, I want such resources to be akin to the people who turned up in the film "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" every time Butch and Sundance got off a train. Butch and Sundance would look behind them, see dust in the distance and ask, "Who are those guys?" I want the drug dealers and gun dealers to know that the resources that would drive them out of Nottingham would not be happy if they ended up in Leicester—that they would continue in pursuit of such gangs wherever they went. This is a national problem that happens at the moment to be manifesting itself specifically in Nottingham. We have to deal with the problem by deploying national resources in a national strategy.

Kerry Pollard: My hon. Friend talks about the national dimension, but does he accept that we must also consider the huge significance of the international dimension? I was on board HMS Sheffield in the West Indies two years ago, while efforts were being made to stop crack cocaine coming to the UK from Colombia via Florida. So before considering the specific issues that my hon. Friend mentions, we must consider the international dimension and get right the rules of engagement of our forces, who are trying to stop this stuff getting into the country.

Alan Simpson: I accept that and it forces us to address other difficult issues about how best to approach those with a hard drug dependency. However, the issues raised with me on the doorstep include the point that Britain is an island. People know that there are many problems beyond our reach or competence as a single country to deal with—the work has to be done on the basis of international collaboration. However, the question is whether it is right to assume that, as a Government, we can do nothing more to halt the supply of the guns and drugs that come into the UK—and the answer is no. It has to be the case that we can find more effective intervention strategies to attack the supply side both where it is generated and where it enters this country. I also know that, at the local level, the resources that people ask for to deal with these problems are not primarily police related. People are looking for resources, security and clarity from the Government about strategies to empower communities to be an effective part of the process.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend lives in the centre of the very city that he represents. I know the area very well. When he talks about numbers, deployment and the responsiveness of the police in Nottingham city centre—it has quite a bleak reputation within the east midlands—does he agree that things could be improved somewhat if the licensing regulations in the city centre were radically altered to free up police from their current roles on Thursday to Sunday evenings? If that happened, it would help to stem the reduction of much-needed resources and help in the fight against drugs and guns.

Alan Simpson: I agree with my hon. Friend's point and I remind him that those were precisely the amendments that I tabled to the Licensing Bill. They would have given local communities and the local police much greater powers to object to some of the large-scale watering holes that currently absorb disproportionate amounts of police time on a Friday evening.
	My point about the use of existing resources is that local people told me that what they needed from the central Government was to feel that they, the Government, were there with them on tackling a number of issues that they rightly viewed as their own. They wanted resources to allow them to break the links between kids and gangs. They wanted the backing of the Government for some of the initiatives taken by mothers, for example, working across the communities traditionally regarded as hostile to each other, to trash the myth and foolishness of that inter-community conflict. They want to know that the information that they pass on to the police can be given safely—in ways that will not imperil their lives.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talked about the wider implications, then the national and regional implications, of the problem. Does he recall that the regional crime squads that used to operate have, for desirable reasons, largely gone? In the past, it would have been to the regional crime squads that Nottingham, Derby and Leicester would have turned for resources to tackle the issues affecting all those cities because of the gangs and all the rest of it. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the new national unit is effectively replacing the old effort that we used to have on a regional basis—in other words, that enough national support is available to Nottinghamshire police service to tackle the drug and gun problems that are particularly acute in the city of Nottingham, but whose origins extend over the whole region, in many cases across the police force boundaries?

Alan Simpson: There are two elements in that question. Not enough national resources have been available to tackle Nottingham's current problems, but I remain agnostic about whether there is a compelling case for revisiting the regional crime squads as opposed to the National Crime Squad. It would be nice to feel that the drug and gun problems could be dealt with in an east midlands context, but in reality the networks run much further afield—from Nottingham to Manchester, from Nottingham to Birmingham and from Nottingham to London. At this stage, I do not want to create unnecessary boundaries that might allow someone to feel that they could escape surveillance if they simply crossed a boundary.

Kenneth Clarke: I agree with that. I am not suggesting that we should go back to having regional crime squads. I am just wondering whether the hon. Gentleman shares my feeling that, having lost the regional crime squads, we are now at a time of crisis insofar as drugs and guns are concerned because not enough resources are getting through to a particular area from the national service that has been set up. The resources are being diverted to immigration crime and all sorts of other areas. We no longer have the specialist support that we might have had in the past and could, perhaps, have again if we were able to draw on more national resources.

Alan Simpson: Again, I do not know what the National Crime Squad has done in respect of diverting its resources. I made the point initially that Nottingham has not had sufficient support from the National Crime Squad to address or halt the problems with which the police, local authorities and local communities are being confronted. In that sense, I can say yes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is for the National Crime Squad to come up with an explanation. My gut feeling is that local communities—and, to some extent, the police and local authorities—feel that they are on their own.
	I was coming on to the point that local people do not feel that it is safe to come forward with information about the possession of guns that are circulating in their communities. One family said to me that it was very easy to talk about the problem from the outside, but that until someone has had the experience of having a gun pointed in their face with the threat that if they say a word to the police, they—or their kids—will be dead, they cannot truly understand it. It changes people's sense of how safe they can feel when they realise that to stay alive is to stay silent. We have to deal with that fear by putting mechanisms in place to allow safe channels for information that do not put the lives of others in the community at risk. I would like to set out how that might be done.
	When I spoke to people about the problem, they were aware that the Government had successfully run a rat-on-a rat campaign. My belief is that we should now be telling people in Nottingham to grass on a gun. The experience of the tragic and completely senseless death of Danielle Beccan has forced people to cross a line. It is no longer seen as an issue between rival gangs, but as an issue that intrudes on innocent young lives. I believe that we will see a huge response from local communities and the local authority in Nottingham, but there must be mechanisms in place to make them feel safe.
	People told me that it would be good to run a grass-on-a-gun campaign, but that more amnesty days would also have to be provided. If we are to say to our own kids in our own communities, "If I hear that you are carrying or stashing or that your mates, nephews or school friends are doing it, I will pick up the phone to send the information on", there has to be an element of security.
	The problem is twofold. First, people have to know that there will be a police response, so the police need resources to back it up. It is not an effective message if people believe that the police will follow it up only in two or three days' time, when the guns may no longer be in the place reported or in the possession of the people reported. The police must be available to deal with the level of information at the point at which communities feel safe to provide it.
	Secondly, people's own confidence and security is important. I am often asked to explain why we allow cars with blacked-out windows on our streets. It is easy to see what happens on the pavements when cars with blacked-out windows slow down—people back away. The expectation is that there is something untoward going on inside the car that could easily threaten their lives. People often ask me what is the case for allowing that to happen. A case could be made for allowing blacked-out windows only with special licences. The ambulance service and perhaps Securicor services need such windows. Licences could be extended even to people running stretched limos for certain social occasions, but why does anyone else who has nothing to hide require the right to drive round streets in vehicles that are perceived as constituting a threat to local communities? I cannot see any reason why we do not make it a requirement for all vehicles to have a special licence to have blacked-out windows. The police could then have the power to stop vehicles to check the licence and, if necessary, to check the vehicles. It would remove a completely unnecessary threat from the streets of the communities where people live.

Patrick Mercer: What consideration has the hon. Gentleman given to an extended witness protection programme?

Alan Simpson: I know that that is a very weak area. Families who are willing to give information that could be traced back to them ask us how their families can be protected. They do not want much, but they do want to live. We have seriously weakened the ability of local authorities to offer emergency rehousing as part of witness protection schemes. I know of several cases in which people have given evidence and have been moved by the local authority. However, the details of their relocation in Nottingham have been discovered and they have asked to be moved to another part of the country, but the transfer system between local authorities has broken down. It requires a police officer to say that the people involved must be moved as part of a witness protection scheme. The bureaucracy stretches out across a time scale that does not equate to the day-to-day sense of risk that the families involved feel. That is a matter of cash resources and the inability of local authorities to put the safety of families before the bureaucracy of the system.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team will visit Nottingham on 5 November. It will give Ministers an opportunity to talk directly to those involved in making the policies and driving the strategies that will intervene at a community level. It will give Ministers the chance to hear and co-ordinate what needs to happen nationally with what happens in local areas. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to bring us some positive news about the resources that are needed. Piecemeal resources are no good—we need the clarity of a structured intervention.
	I hope that the message that will come across in the press and to the people of Nottingham is that the Stand Together initiative in the city will be continued in the days and years to come. That has to involve the measures needed to tackle national and international sources of supply, as well as empowering communities to make a stand on their own behalf. The killing of Danielle Beccan was a watershed for the people of Nottingham. The outrage that it provoked will change the way in which communities feel willing to act in partnership with others. That amounts to a policy challenge for the Government and for local communities. People now know that the challenge at local level is to take the toys from the boys. We have to do that because they are not toys any more, but weapons that take lives—and not only of those involved in gang conflict or in drug and turf wars. They kill children. In many ways, the guns are now a threat to our future. Unless we stand together, we will not deliver a future safe for our children to live in. I hope that we can.

Nick Hawkins: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He is a thoughtful, sincere and well informed Member of Parliament, as well as a diligent constituency representative. He has proved that once again this evening.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I grew up in the midlands, albeit a little further south. I also practised at the Bar, prosecuting and defending criminal cases involving drugs and firearms offences for several years from the late 1970s to the late 1980s. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I share his concern about what is happening in all the midlands cities. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Danielle Beccan at the moment, but we all share the same concerns about all our inner cities and the problems that drugs and crime cause.
	This is my first set-piece speech from the Back Benches for more than five years. Since I was first appointed to the Front Bench in 1999, I have always been either a shadow Home Office or shadow legal affairs Minister—although at times I also had other responsibilities, such as sport. I mention that because I have therefore had the privilege of receiving detailed briefings on several of the issues that are the subject of the Opposition motion and the Government amendment.
	I shall, for obvious reasons, refer to the briefings only in general terms, but I raised one particular issue in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis): the concern that many of the leading investigation authorities, such as the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, have had for several years about the greater prevalence of the use of guns by drug barons who have come to this country from other countries—in particular, from Albania. One of the sad effects of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia was a big increase in criminals coming into this country, sometimes surreptitiously from Albania or Kosovo, and sometimes openly, by claiming to come from other eastern European countries. We have seen the detection recently of a few of those drug and crime barons. When they entered the country, they claimed to be from Hungary, Bulgaria or the Czech Republic, but on investigation they were crime lords from Albania and Kosovo. We have also had an influx of serious criminals from India and Pakistan, and also from China.
	The criminal gangs link the trafficking of drugs, people and guns, the exploitation of women and children and associated kidnap and ransom crime. It has been said that Albanian criminals have proved too wild and murderous for the Italian police and the police in southern France to cope with. They are a major problem that we ignore at our peril. The Albanians have in many cases taken over the drug rings from the Jamaican Yardies, who for many years brought in large quantities of crack cocaine, which is, as we know, both psychologically addictive and associated with a very violent culture. We now have an extraordinary problem, the like of which this country has not had to deal with before.
	There are now far too many people using hard drugs in all our inner cities and even in our country towns. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South described all too vividly the kind of problems that his constituents face, with children being used as drug runners. I am sure that his description will have been chilling for anyone who heard it and for those who read it subsequently.
	The police are doing their best to cope with these new problems and challenges. For my own area of Surrey, I wish to pay tribute to Denis O'Connor, who recently retired as chief constable but who has gone on to become one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. He was a superb leader of the Surrey county force and engendered the spirit within Surrey police that enabled many of his officers to produce great success in tackling crime, including major drugs seizures. Only recently there was a successful prosecution of drug dealers who were using a gymnasium in my constituency as the centre of their operations. I pay tribute to the work of Surrey police, led by Denis O'Connor, in tackling the drugs menace in recent years.
	Unfortunately, people are concerned that the priorities in every part of the country and in the mind of every senior police officer are not the same as the general public would wish them to be. I was horrified, and I think that most law-abiding people were horrified, to hear a senior spokesman from the Association of Chief Police Officers recently say that the police will not spend much time on crime detection if there is no compelling evidence pointing to those responsible. Some crimes that are of huge concern to the public are so infrequently detected that informed commentators have pointed out that an air of hopelessness, which affects the victims of crime and the police, now sadly affects the whole process.
	Official figures show that only 12 per cent. of burglaries are being cleared up. Even in the metropolis, where much good work has been done under Sir John Stevens, crime screening guidelines, which are being copied—in my view wrongly—in many parts of the UK, have downgraded some offences to "less serious crimes", which, to my amazement, include burglary. It is said that unless immediate and compelling evidence points to the culprits, such crimes will not be investigated further. We have reached a pretty pass if dwelling house burglary is no longer regarded as a serious enough crime to receive police priority.
	The statistics relating to police clear-up—what are called detection rates—demonstrate that. In 1980, 40 per cent. of all recorded crimes were detected. The most recent figure that I have is for the year ending 2002, when the rate was down to 23 per cent. Moreover, the proportion of those detected crimes that resulted in a conviction fell from 18 to 9 per cent. There is a huge variation in detection rates between forces. The Audit Commission concluded that the variations are not explicable simply in terms of work load or local circumstances. It thinks that such patchiness is indicative of a misuse of resources. That is why Conservatives want a vast increase in police numbers and a guarantee that they will be properly deployed. One of the things that I find from talking to people about policing and crime is that the law-abiding population are, sadly, now far less confident that the police are being properly deployed and that they are concentrating on the right things. There is certainly huge concern that the law-abiding members of our community do not see police officers out on the beat.
	I recognise that intelligence-led policing, as the vogue phrase has it, has a role to play when we talk about tackling serious and organised crime, but surely the first duty of every police force is to ensure that the law abiding are protected and feel protected. All too often in conversations with law-abiding people, I find that there is a lack of confidence in the police because there has been too much concentration on slogans and the kind of things that the Home Secretary talked about. If law-abiding citizens were to read what I can only describe as a contemptuous and dismissive speech by the Home Secretary of Great Britain, many of them would be angry because he complained that he heard nothing but doom and gloom, but the law-abiding people of this country know that the position in terms of guns, drugs and crime is, sadly, doom and gloom.
	The Opposition motion makes it clear that the problem with the Government is that they think that having a strategy, initiative or announcement means that they are solving the problem. When the Home Secretary was challenged on that, he said that when the Conservatives were in government they did not have this initiative or that strategy, but it is not initiatives or strategies that the people of Great Britain want: it is criminals being caught and locked up so that they can no longer prey on the law abiding. Strategies, initiatives and bureaucracy do not achieve that.
	There are few better examples of what I and law-abiding people are complaining about than the Home Office brochure that I have here entitled "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together". About half the questions in it are on things like the community advocacy service. It says:
	"Would you like a community advocacy service in your area? . . . Who do you think should sit on the"
	police
	"boards? . . . Would you welcome the creation of a neighbourhood panel in your area?"
	I do not know how much taxpayers' money was spent on producing a huge number of copies of the brochure, but I guarantee that every law-abiding person would rather give money to chief constables to have more police officers on the beat than spend it on producing glossy brochures asking nonsensical questions about new ideas that the Government have for bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not the answer; it is the problem. It is not what the people want. Unfortunately, it is what the Government believe in.
	There are few better examples of the problem than the Home Secretary's response to an excellent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about the collapse in the number of special constables. The Home Secretary simply did not understand my hon. Friend's point that if special constables are no longer available, and the number has reduced hugely since the Government came to power, they cannot patrol with the regulars. The Home Secretary's response was to say that some of the specials have become regulars. That is true and welcome, but it does not explain the huge collapse in the number of special constables. People are so upset about the lack of policing in their area because the Government have shown little interest in getting police on the street. It is all talk, strategies, committees, bureaucracy and no action.
	The Home Secretary speaks as if all he has done is to improve the position, but that contrasts with what serving police officers say. A police sergeant was quoted in Police Review as saying:
	"Officers spend so much time dealing with administration. The increased bureaucracy from"
	Labour's proposals for more changes
	"will further add to the time a sergeant spends on the whole process."
	The Government are not taking any notice of that problem.
	The Government are obsessed with their complex and expensive IT solutions. I predict here and now that their incredibly complicated and expensive IT project will turn out to be a disaster, just like every other IT project with which they have been associated. I predict that in a few years' time the Public Accounts Committee will have to inquire into the huge waste of taxpayers' money and the fact that the project has gone wildly over budget and does not work. It will be just like all the other IT disasters over which the Government have presided.
	If I am right in predicting that the project will be another publicly funded IT disaster, all the taxpayers' money will be thrown down the drain instead of being spent on getting police officers back on the streets. I am not saying that there is no use for IT; I am just saying that the Home Secretary's decision to concentrate on the IT project as solving all the problems will not cut any ice with people who are worried about the rise in crime.

Mark Oaten: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Government's ability to run a major national IT scheme. I take it that he will vote against proposals for an identity card system on that basis?

Nick Hawkins: In the past, I have expressed my concerns about the use of technology in all kinds of Government projects, not merely the one I was just talking about, and clearly some of the issues that arise in this context may also apply to identity cards, but I do not intend to make predictions without knowing what the motion would be. The hon. Gentleman made a nice try and I understand what lies behind his point, but I shall not commit myself to what my vote might be on a motion that has not yet come before the House.
	When we look at the issues that have come to the centre of public attention recently due to the tragic shooting of Danielle Beccan, we have to consider whether the police forces affected have received what they asked for. Even Government Members have made it clear that forces such as Nottinghamshire have been asking for vast increases in officers—the chief constable of Nottinghamshire obviously wants that, as he has asked for it repeatedly—but they have not been getting those increases. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, Manchester has been asking for 3,000 more officers. That is why we phrased our motion as we did; we feel that law-abiding people want a vast increase in policing. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will solve all the problems with IT projects when we face a situation where violent crime is up by 20 per cent., as even they accept, gun crime is up by 30 per cent. and drug offences have gone up by 16 per cent.
	As other Members want to speak, it would be wrong of me to take too much time explaining my view that the Government have presided over far too great a relaxation of drugs policy; I made speeches on that subject when I was shadow drugs Minister. I shall refer to some headlines as they describe what the law-abiding people of this country are seeing: "Labour drops key targets on drugs"; "Government goes soft on club drug-taking";"'Give young crooks £20,000 a year to stay out of trouble', urges Minister. So, who says crime doesn't pay"; "Crime shambles. Offences up"; "Plunging prices of drugs on the street"; "Cut-price drugs hit the streets"; "Cannabis explosion—when police tried going soft on the drug its use tripled. That same approach is about to become national policy"; "Cannabis laws in shambles"; "Real offenders are not paying price of crime"; "MPs urged to reconsider the dangers of cannabis".
	It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of their responsibility for that explosion in drugs since they came to power in 1997. My right hon. Friend referred to the Prime Minister's use of the phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The greatest cause of crime, as all law-abiding people know, is drugs. The Government have not been tough on drugs as a cause of crime, they have been soft. There can be no argument about that; everybody in the country knows it. The Government have given misleading signals, especially to the young.
	I feel strongly that the Government have created a situation in which the drug barons, who use guns so ruthlessly, can take advantage of the greater market for drugs and the lower street price for drugs. They have moved into our inner cities in increasing numbers and that has led to the rise in organised crime over which the Government have presided. I put the finger of blame firmly on the Government, because all those matters are linked.
	I want to refer to one final quote from a paper that is not my normal reading, but perhaps that makes the words even more effective. The Independent stated:
	"Mr. Blunkett's ideas grab headlines, but won't prevent a single crime."
	I would go further: the policies of the Government— all about headline-grabbing initiatives, strategies and glossy brochures—are failing to tackle the problem and are ensuring, unfortunately for the law-abiding people of this country, that crime will continue to rise. It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of the serious problems that affect every part of the UK. As recent events have all too tragically demonstrated, the Government have lost control. That is why Members on both sides of the House should support the Opposition motion.

Linda Gilroy: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), as I come from a constituency that is well endowed with some of the Government's special initiatives. We have a very can-do approach to tackling some of the problems.
	I want to pay special tribute to the thoughtful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has dealt with the issues in his constituency. Our constituencies have much in common. Nottingham is a city of similar size to Plymouth and faces similar challenges. Thankfully, we do not have the gun crime that appears to be endemic there, but we have severe drug and alcohol-related problems. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent establishment of an all-party group on the night-time economy, as that will enable us to undertake some constructive thinking about the issues.
	In Plymouth, we have a "Catch a Rat" initiative, rather than "Rat on a Rat", so I was interested in my hon. Friend's idea for "Grass on a Gun". I wondered what the equivalent might be for knives, but perhaps we could pursue the catch a rat theme on guns and knives. Those with such weapons are rats infesting our communities and making people's lives a misery.
	I hope that the visit from the Home Office team that my hon. Friend mentioned will go as well as the recent visit to Plymouth. It certainly created a buzz in our community; the knowledge that Ministers were willing to talk to people in our communities about the challenges that we face brought very positive feelings. The Home Secretary and his team now have a first-hand view of our policing, crime and community challenges in Plymouth and of the way in which our local partnerships are working to tackle the deep-seated problems of antisocial behaviour, substance abuse of all sorts and binge drinking in a city that has for hundreds of years been associated with the abuse of alcohol, especially in the Barbican area where I live.
	I am trying to choose my words carefully, because such things matter. When we talk about crime and crime figures, it is important to distinguish, as the Home Secretary did, between what the British crime survey and the figures for recorded crime are telling us. There has been a significant rise in violent crime in Plymouth, but the story is interesting and it may inform our debate to consider exactly what that rise means and how it chimes with what the British crime survey tells us about a fall in violent crime.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety knows, alcohol and drugs problems are as serious in Plymouth as anywhere, and although, thankfully, we do not have the gun problem, we have a knife problem and I shall return to that point towards the end of my remarks. In May this year, we carried out a successful blitz on yobs and drunken louts, using on-the-spot fines, as part of the national campaign that the Home Secretary launched on 22 March. In the four months between March and July, 490 on-the-spot fines were issued throughout Devon, 170 of them in Plymouth. Chief Superintendent Maurice Watts welcomed such fines as a valuable weapon to allow police to tackle offenders without getting tied up in paperwork, so that they could get back on patrol and—guess what?—catch more offenders; hence the rise in the statistics. We want them to rise. One of the few points on which I could agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was that detection rates—catching people and successfully holding them to account—matter and on-the-spot fines are proving to be useful in that respect. They increase the chances that people are caught and fined.

Mark Oaten: I am beginning to warm a little more to fixed penalties, but is not one of the problems the number of individuals who fail to pay them? Is there any evidence that a fixed penalty will stop an individual committing further crimes in future?

Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I was reading about them earlier today. Certainly, when they were reported in July at the end of that programme, more than half of such fines had been paid—a significant number—but I am not certain how many remain unpaid a few months later.

Stephen McCabe: I was surprised to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Perhaps I can direct him to a survey conducted by West Midlands police, which shows the difference in the payment rates for on-the-spot fines and conventional court fines. The police advocate on-the-spot fines for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend mentions.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. The cost of issuing such a ticket is £2, because the police time involved in bureaucracy is eliminated, compared with £90 if the case has to go to court. So measures that the Leader of the Opposition ridiculed at Prime Minister's Question Time only a short time ago are proving extremely effective.
	Plymouth also took part in the summer alcohol misuse enforcement campaign, which involved developing a partnership approach to tackle alcohol-related violence and disorder and to target those who encourage under-age and binge drinking in our city. In the nine weeks from 8 July to 5 September, the campaign proved somewhat successful, as Ministers found when they visited Plymouth.
	A small part of that programme included a night bus pilot scheme, with part of the money coming from the Home Office and part from Plymouth city council. On two weekends, arrangements were made to ensure that buses were available at the times when clubs tend to close and people tip out on to the streets in large numbers—sometimes 10,000 people do so on Union street in Plymouth—and the buses took them away to the outlying estates. That seemed to prove effective, even though it was available only on those two weekends.
	The programme also made use of a dispersal order under section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which was in force between the end of July and the beginning of September and was often used to disperse groups on the streets in Plymouth.
	What was the result of that summer campaign? Offences of grievous bodily harm were down by 50 per cent.; common assault was down 18 per cent., most of the reduction occurring in weeks 4 to 9 while the dispersal powers were in use; street offences were reduced; and there was a spread in the peak of offending, which tends to happen every Thursday to Saturday night. When the clubs close, crime tends to peak and policing is difficult, but running those buses seemed to help to spread the peaks, helping the police in the area and producing the sort of results that I have just mentioned.
	If the figures on offences of drunkenness are removed from the area covered by that project—drunkenness is not part of the Home Office violent crime statistics—violent crime fell by 2 per cent., against an increasing 10.2 per cent. trend in the southern sector, which is the surrounding area, since April 2004. Using those powers and the partnership approach proved very effective. Indeed, the city council and the police will consider how to build on this through the community safety partnership in the busy period, the run-up to Christmas.
	Plymouth has also made good use of antisocial behaviour orders, on which we also enjoy strong partnership work, involving the youth offending team and ensuring that we explore alternatives before using ASBOs as a last resort. There are currently more than 40 ASBOs in the area covered by the Plymouth basic command unit. Their huge potential to reduce crime has been illustrated in Stonehouse, which I have often referred to as being the poorest ward in England in 1997—thankfully, we are moving away from that position now—since proceedings were instigated against Clark Graham, a prolific offender who was obviously responsible, with his associates, for a substantial amount of crime in that area. If the trend that was established when the ASBO had been in place for a month or two continued, it would represent an enormous 28 per cent. annual reduction in crime in the area, a 25 per cent. reduction in police calls and a reduction in calls to my office in Plymouth. A substantial number of my constituents have contacted my office there and said, "Please help us", and the ASBO is providing an effective means of doing so.
	We have also used the new powers to close two crack houses in Prince Rock and one on the Barbican. Again, that has made a transformational difference to residents there, bringing a new calm to areas that were previously blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour. The local evening paper quoted a resident who said:
	"The community feels a lot safer. At times we used to have up to 40 people hanging around the houses. They would call round at any time of day or night and shout up at the windows or throw stones to wake them up. We were finding it impossible to live."
	Again, the new powers and initiatives that the Home Office has introduced are proving very effective in bringing greater peace and security to parts of Plymouth.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety knows that I go out most Saturday mornings with my team to conduct a roving surgery. Over the past six months, I have conducted an antisocial behaviour survey in that way. One of the things that I have found is that crime is incredibly localised. In some parts of the city, the majority of people still rate drugs as an issue, but in other places not very far away, drugs do not feature at all in the survey. People say things quite spontaneously. There is no tick box for this; people just fill in the part of the form for other comments. They say, "Police are much more visible", "I'm quite happy—no major issues", "Things are better", "Area has cleaned up", "Things pretty good now" and "Very happy with all local issues." I am not sure how this fits with antisocial behaviour, but some say, "Pensions are good", "Health service better now" and "Vandalism better than it was." So the Home Secretary's remark that we should not lose sight of the good news stories is extremely important.
	We have also had considerable success with the introduction of neighbourhood beat managers, who are beginning to instil confidence in communities that they will be listened to. As I know from some of the phone calls that I made this weekend, there is still an enormous amount to be done. Over the weekend, I put about four or five people in touch with the contact for their neighbourhood beat managers, who are keen to hear from and work with the communities. For years, the communities have been asking for the police to go back on the beat, and with the extra police numbers that we now have in Plymouth it is possible to make that happen.
	My hon. Friend the Minister appreciates the partnership work that underpins all that. There will be an awful lot of competition for the together programme bids that she or the Home Secretary is considering. I hope that, from what she and her colleagues have seen in Plymouth, we will be one of those successful bidders. She can be absolutely certain that we shall make very good use of that programme. If the money for special initiatives is not welcome in Surrey Heath, it is certainly welcome in Plymouth. I am already thinking, with Chief Superintendent Maurice Watts, of things that could be done. Just today, I was talking to him about how we could crack down on binge drinking and the resulting misbehaviour that plagues our communities.
	I recently saw on London television that one of the police forces, I think, in or around London is using the embarrassment factor of having a large bucket of soapy water—containing disinfectant, I hope—to clean up the mess made by people who urinate in the street. The Home Secretary was very concerned to hear of the extent to which that is a feature in some of our communities in Plymouth. Zero tolerance of those antisocial offenders has a bearing on creating the climate in which we can achieve major reductions in all sorts of crime, including violent crime.
	There are many good news stories in Plymouth, but my hon. Friend the Minister will also understand that we have persistent levels of serious violent crime, including murder in the city.
	Two such crimes stick out in my mind and it would be remiss of me to concentrate only on the good news stories in Plymouth. I am sure that people in Plymouth will recognise these cases, the first of which is the tragic death two years ago of baby Perran. Despite many reports from members of the community, he died a tragic death. He should never have been left in the care of the couple who were his so-called parents, and he died in tragic circumstances. They were drugs users, and reports from people in the community should have been taken note of, but they were not. However, when a ward has approaching 200 looked-after children in a population of only 10,000, the challenges for the public services are significant.
	The same is true of the recent tragic death of Flo Seccombe. Last week, her murderer, Hartshorn, was put down for 14 or 15 years—for once, a sentence that fits the crime. The young man had been drinking and high on drugs for many hours before he committed an unprovoked knife attack on a woman who was sleeping rough in a bus station. It took many months to trace him, because some of the many criminals of that description better fitted the profile than he did.
	People tend to call for reviews after such tragedies, and while it is important to learn the lessons, we must pay attention to what has happened before and to the action plans that come from the reviews. When reviews are put in place, they often do not recognise that things have already been done in the community in response to previous reviews and to the stringent audit and inspection processes that we now have across the public services—whether local government, social services, health services and so on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety will agree that it is important that those reviews are proportionate to, and take account of, changes already in hand from previous inspections and reviews.
	We have had a number of such reports in Plymouth—from social services, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, internal reviews of serious cases and incidents, and the good guidance emanating from Lord Laming's review into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. Many of them have already resulted in changes to senior management, to action and recovery plans, to closer working relationships, to more joined-up working between the public services and to joint commissioning of services between social and health services.
	I worry that, because the reviews are expensive in terms of management time in particular, money and management time could be better used in developing front-line services and in investing in things such as Sure Start, children's trusts, programmes to tackle domestic violence and all the initiatives that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath so derided. For example, substance abuse and alcohol dependency contribute much to the circumstances that result in the tragic deaths that are all too frequently reported in the press. Some would agree that investing in preventive measures has far more to contribute to turning round the fractured families and communities about which we all share a concern.

Gary Streeter: May I commend you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your wisdom in calling me immediately after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy)? I wish to raise one of the city-wide constituency cases that she has just mentioned. I agree that many good things are happening in Plymouth and that we are blessed with an excellent police force that is well led by Chief Inspector Maurice Watts. Much progress has been made. However, it is worrying that violent crime is still on the increase, and that is one of the points that I want to address in my remarks.

Linda Gilroy: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I said that serious violent crime had gone down and that the programmes over the summer period in which more people were caught had resulted in the figures going up.

Gary Streeter: I am grateful for that point but, not many weeks ago, I sat in the same meeting with Chief Inspector Watts as the hon. Lady. We were told that violent crime was on the increase, and I certainly believe that to be the case in Plymouth. Many things are positive but, sadly, we must address that problem.
	I want to commend my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary for a very powerful and positive speech setting out serious points and asking serious questions of the Home Secretary. I confess that I normally enjoy the Home Secretary's speeches. He is a talented man and speaks well. I am afraid that I do not know what went wrong today. We were treated not to a serious response to some very credible questions but to sixth-form party political debating points. That did him no service and did not grace the debate. I was disappointed to witness that; it is not normally the way that he performs.
	We have heard a little of the infamous saying by which the Government came to power claiming that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I want to tackle a couple of issues relating to that in what I hope will be a fairly brief speech. A primary cause of crime is drug addiction, and in Plymouth we face a serious problem. We heard earlier that Nottingham has perhaps 6,000 heroin addicts and crack cocaine users, and we normally use a figure of 2,500 to 3,000 for Plymouth. I want to put it on the record again that the waiting time for treatment for a young heroin addict who bravely comes to the decision that he wants to kick the habit is still about 12 to 18 months. That is far too long to be meaningful.

Hazel Blears: indicated dissent.

Gary Streeter: The Minister frowns and shakes her head, but I invite her to look carefully at the statistics. I have checked recently with some of the voluntary agencies that are involved with these brave young lives, and they confirm those figures. She may have figures that come from a mandarin in Whitehall, but I assure her that young people are waiting months before they get the treatment and help that they require to kick a drugs habit that is fuelling crime and causing much distress in Plymouth.
	Another primary cause of crime is surely mental health difficulties, which seem to affect many people and may be on the increase. I raise with the Minister the troubling case that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned about the recent tragic murder of Flo Seccombe and the conviction on Friday of her killer, Ian Hartshorn. I refer briefly to something that the judge said when he passed sentence in that case. A newspaper report points out:
	"Judge Taylor said that in the run up to the killing Hartshorn had been drinking for 13 hours on an empty stomach, had taken cannabis and also his daily amphetamines.
	The judge said: 'You ignored your curfew and stayed out getting into difficulties'.
	Judge Taylor said that Hartshorn eventually went to Bretonside Bus Station where he came across 'the prone figure of Flo Seccombe as she slept in a duvet'.
	He said she was a 'frail and particularly vulnerable person who posed no trouble to Hartshorn as she was fast asleep and snoring'.
	He said Hartshorn told her to stop snoring or he would stab her and when she didn't he 'thrust a knife into her neck so that it severed a vital blood vessel on the opposite side'."
	Flo Seccombe sadly died.
	As the story unfolded, it became clear that, before the killing, Mr. Hartshorn had been to seek help from the psychiatric services in Plymouth.
	The report added:
	"Paul Dunkels, defending, in mitigation, said to the court: 'He thought there was something wrong with him.' . . . Hartshorn was referred to an adolescent consultant psychiatrist on September 23, 2003, when he showed signs of 'frustration and anger'. Mr Dunkels said that the psychiatrist said Hartshorn expressed 'paranoid, morbid thoughts about his family, constantly wanting to know they were safe'. He was also suffering from night sweats, panic attacks, and had 'particular thoughts of harming other people'.
	Mr Dunkels said Hartshorn 'assaulted his own sister in the past and has stopped himself from stabbing her by removing himself from her presence'."
	The psychiatric report on Hartshorn concluded that he
	"was not in need of psychiatric care"
	and Judge Taylor said of the report:
	"I could not believe that I read that"—
	and nor could I. It is easy to second-guess professional people, but it seems that there is a crisis in mental health support and provision in Plymouth, Devon and perhaps other parts of the country.
	What do I want from Ministers? I do not expect to hear answers about the specific case this evening, but I invite them to call for an urgent report on the case to determine what lessons that can be learned from it so that law-abiding people in Devon and Cornwall are kept safe from violence flowing from mental health problems. If the Minister calls for such a report, I hope that she will write to me to tell me how it is getting along.
	I pay tribute to the police for the way in which they tracked down and prosecuted the killer of Flo Seccombe. They attribute that to good old-fashioned detective work, and I agree with them. I pay tribute especially to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Boulting and his team for solving such a difficult case.
	I put it on record that I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to deal with disturbed young people. We should not deprive people of their liberty lightly, yet we cannot force people to choose what is best for their lives. The provision of quality care, and especially residential care, for such troubled young people is expensive, and such issues raise all kinds of complex challenges. I accept all those facts, but Ministers have an overriding duty to protect the public.
	Ian Hartshorn had a turbulent history and was well known to the authorities. When he killed poor Flo Seccombe, he had just come off a tagging scheme, which was the sentence for burglaries that he had committed, and he was under a police curfew. However, the murder took place in the middle of the night, so what was the point of him being under a curfew that did not work? Will the Minister review how the curfew system operated in the case?
	Ian Hartshorn was in supervised social services accommodation, although I am not yet clear about precisely what kind. What kind of supervision allows a disturbed young man to drink himself senseless and wander around the streets of Plymouth with a knife in his hand in the small hours of the night? Will the Minister call for a report on that matter?
	My main worry about the case is the fact that Hartshorn had a history of mental health problems and that he presented himself to the authorities to ask for help only nine days before the murder. He was an alcoholic at the age of 11 and indulged in self-harm. He was consistently involved in a range of crimes for which he had received a variety of sentences, and he was infatuated with knives and other sharp objects, but when he went for help nothing was done. How could a psychiatric consultant conclude that he was not in need of psychiatric care? Judge Taylor could not believe that, and neither can I. Will the Minister please examine that matter?
	I am worried about the way in which mental health services are delivered in Plymouth and I suspect that there are such concerns elsewhere. Perhaps too many agencies are involved. We heard earlier that the answer to all our problems was a multi-agency approach, but sometimes that is another way of saying that no single person or organisation takes responsibility, and I fear that that is happening in Plymouth.
	The report on the case in the Plymouth Evening Herald said:
	"A spokesman for the Strategic Health Authority, overseeing all health care, said: 'The South West Peninsula Strategic Health Authority will consider the internal investigations into the care and treatment of Mr Hartshorn by Plymouth PCT and Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust before deciding on what further action is necessary."
	It seems that the primary care trust, the hospital trust and social services are involved in the process, but who is responsible for delivering mental health services in Plymouth? How could a disturbed young man such as Ian Hartshorn slip through the net in such a way? Does anyone know what is supposed to happen to him and people similar to him? Perhaps they should receive institutional care, but if so, where? Plymouth has the Glenbourne unit at Derriford hospital, but that small unit is nearly always full, so where are people supposed to go? Such people may use halfway house accommodation, but the rules in such places are so lax that nocturnal prowling with a knife is permitted. We need to get more of a grip on the situation.
	As the case was raging in our local media throughout the weekend, a person told me about their experiences of dealing with Plymouth's mental health services. His son had been on cannabis and had tried to kill his parents—I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a serious matter. The son spent two months in the Derriford hospital psychiatric unit, and in the first two weeks after he left the unit, 13 different people tried to help him. He did not see the same person twice. After that time, he received only one call per week from the mental health services to his mobile phone. He is now slipping back into his old and violent ways. I am forced to conclude that there are insufficient places for disturbed young people in Plymouth and that they do not get the right treatment from the mental health services. That situation contributes significantly to Plymouth's crime levels, so I ask the Minister to address the problem.
	The pressure on services is getting worse. Recent revelations that cannabis can cause a violent reaction in 10 per cent. of users alone should have caused the Government to rethink their idiotic and shameful decision to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug. The more that I learn about the case—I read that Hartshorn had taken both cannabis and vodka—the more I realise that such substances can cause certain people to have a serious reaction that can lead to violent crime.
	The problems are likely to increase. More and more young people in our society are growing up in homes that fail to nurture and support them. More and more young people are on hard drugs or experiment with cannabis and indulge in binge drinking. More and more young people are being affected by disturbing experiences. That situation will produce—and is producing—more and more young people who experience various forms of mental health challenges. For their own sake, such disturbed young people need better help than they are receiving at present, and Ministers need to take more effective action to protect the public.
	An internal review is now under way into Plymouth's mental health agencies, but that is not enough. I ask the Minister to intervene and call for a full report before someone else gets killed.

Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman is making some—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech.

Stephen McCabe: I shall make a brief contribution to a debate in which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised good points. However, one of the problems with the debate is the fact that the motion is designed to serve too many purposes, which probably explains why the shadow Home Secretary had such difficulty addressing it. There is a serious problem with guns and drugs about which several hon. Members have made valid points, but there is also a problem with the Conservatives' ludicrous promise of 40,000 extra police, which no one believes and the shadow Home Secretary could not explain. Of course, the final part of the motion refers to greater freedom for communities to direct policing, but that concept is clearly so difficult to explain that he did not bother to address it.
	That seems to have been the difficulty with our debate tonight. When Members have been free to concentrate on real issues, we have heard valid contributions. However, it is absurd that the Conservative party, whose leader allowed police numbers to fall by more than 1,000 when he was Home Secretary, should now say that it will increase them at a rate of 5,000 a year and achieve a 40,000 growth within five years. It is absurd that, while the Conservatives plan to cut £1.6 billion from the Home Office budget, they say that they can afford policing costs that will run at about £1.3 billion. It would be better for the public if we did not waste time on what is clearly political nonsense designed solely to catch the odd headline and achieve nothing.
	That damages the case that Opposition Members could make. I was interested when the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is not now present, mentioned special constables. There is a valid argument that we could make greater use of special constables. I am intrigued by the number of senior policemen who tell me that, because they cannot rota special constables, they are not as useful as they could be. We should be considering the array of support available: community support officers, special constables, and neighbourhood and other wardens.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. There is an analogous example in the case of the retained firefighter, who can be rostered and trained to the same high degree as a regular officer. Is there not a case for retained police officers, directly analogous to firefighters, who could fill some of the gaps and be proper, omnicompetent constables?

Stephen McCabe: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that I accept that, at one level, we need a larger police force. I believe that we need specialised officers—people who can deliver a particular service. When the public talk about the visible uniformed presence, they want reassurance. I am not sure whether that always requires a fully trained, highly specialised police officer and I believe that there is scope for examining how we could add extra support. We would make more progress if we were all honest about that and did not waste time with ludicrous claims about police numbers that no one believes will ever be achieved.
	In the same vein, we would make much more progress with the public, and with people's anxiety about crime, if we confined ourselves to talking about things that are actually true. It is easy to see how politicians get themselves locked into a position in which they bid up ideas about crime and the fear of it. We are witnessing that at the moment. However, the reality is that a small number of serious crimes are causing problems, and we should all be applying ourselves to tackling them. Against that, we should acknowledge that general crime figures are coming down. It does not pay to tell people lies about what is happening.

Andrew Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I should perhaps tell him that the West Midlands police's own figures show that crime is coming down according to all their main indicators. Burglaries, vehicle crime, street assaults and thefts are all down. I suggest that he speaks to the commander at his local operational command unit if he does not believe that that is the case.

Andrew Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman looks at his own Government's Home Office website, he will see that, since 1997, when the Conservative Government left office, crime in the west midlands has increased.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman is making an obvious mistake, although I do not know whether that is by design or accident. He will know that we changed the method for recording crime and we made it obvious that there would be an increase in figures based on that more accurate record. The fact is that the trend is going in a particular direction, and I think that he knows that perfectly well. Recently, when I met the chief superintendent in the operational command unit that covers my constituency, he showed me superb figures for the work that the men and women of West Midlands police are doing. Rather than trash or attack them, we should be commending them for their achievements, and I find it outrageous that people are not prepared to do that.
	I concede that, despite the fact that the police are making progress, there are some problems and certain crimes that we have to be anxious about. We have heard about them tonight—drug and gun-related offences. There is also the constant fear of antisocial behaviour, which fuels people's fear of crime and makes them feel less safe even when the statistics are moving in the right direction. On the motion, therefore, we would be better served if we could concentrate on the real issues, and steer clear of nonsensical policing figures and hysterical and untrue arguments about crime.
	I want to make a couple of specific points about guns. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made a number of useful points on guns, but he was wrong to emphasise compensation. That is not the route to getting guns out of the hands of criminals or to cutting the supply. If he were to look at the South African experience, he would realise that compensation is often the way to increase the flow of guns. We should be making it more difficult for people who have no reason to have a gun to have access to one. I make it clear again that I am not against legal gun clubs or people who use guns for legitimate sporting purposes, who are normally responsible and reliable. I have no problem with them, but it is far too easy for people to get their hands on guns.
	I will give one example. The other week, it was possible for me to buy a gun from the eBay internet site. The way in which the sellers work is simple. They advertise an empty bag or box. The buyer bids for that bag or box, and when that is done, the seller throws in the gun for free. In this case, I paid £80 for a .22 air pistol, which is technically legal. However, the gentleman who sold it wanted to conduct the sale in a motorway service station, where he produced the gun from the boot of his car, complete with gas cylinders—which promptly took it beyond the legal range. It would have been possible for a 12-year-old child to purchase that weapon and have it sent through the post. That is why we have a problem with guns, and that is what we should be seeking to tackle. We should be trying to cut the supply.
	Considering the money that an organisation such as eBay is worth, it has no need to engage in that trade. One group that proudly advertises on its site is known as Guns2thugs. I strongly recommend that hon. Members look at the site, because I can assure them that they will be appalled. We should focus our attention on cutting the supply of guns and taking active steps to reduce the number of replicas available. A police officer confronting a replica has no way of knowing whether it is a real gun.
	About two years ago, according to the most recent statistics that I have seen, 85 per cent. of the incidents to which the West Midlands police armed response unit was called out involved replica weapons, but there was no way for the police to know that they were replicas at the time. If we want to take the guns out of our society, we have to find ways of ensuring that people who do not need guns do not have them.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend knows that, in the Greater London area, the majority of gun crime is committed by persons using replica weapons that have been rebored so that they can be used to shoot bullets. The police and all concerned groups are calling for a complete ban on replica weapons.

Stephen McCabe: I agree entirely—that is the only logical step for us to take. It is far too easy for people to acquire replica weapons and for the weapons to be re-engineered in back-street workshops, then sold in back-street pubs or traded on things like the eBay internet site. The only thing to do is ban them. The idea that definition is a problem is absurd. If we want to stop weapons getting into the wrong hands, we can do it. It is surely not beyond the legal minds of this country to come up with a simple, straightforward definition.
	That is an area in which we could make real progress and about which hon. Members on both sides of the House want something to be done. We should ask people, "Why do you need a gun?" and restrict the ways in which guns can be bought and sold. We should take every possible step to ensure that guns cannot be transferred through the postal service. It is ludicrous that guns can be sold on internet sites. We should seriously consider whether there are any present or potential laws that could be used to tackle organisations such as Guns2thugs, which proudly tells its customers that it will get them the real thing to do the real job. In this day and age in a society such as ours such things are almost beyond belief. If we focused our attention on that area we could make a big difference to communities across the country.
	My final observation about today's debate is to say how struck I was by the comments of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about the final part of the motion and the proposal to give
	"Local communities . . . greater freedom to direct the efforts of their police force".
	I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrats intend to support the motion because I thought that two thirds of the hon. Gentleman's speech was telling hon. Members why they should not support it. It is extraordinary that he wriggled himself into opposing his own instincts; perhaps that is Liberal Democrat policy. However, he made a valid point: we should think carefully about what we mean by that phrase. It would be absurd to have direct elections for people who can control the police. That would be the last word in politicising the police and it would open the door—or at least pose a risk of doing so—to the problem of groups such as the British National party getting control of our police forces. That would be a terrible way to proceed.
	To return to my earlier point about the need to deal with real crime, not the fear of crime, and not to exaggerate, we must bear it in mind that, in some areas, those who, for some political reason, had a vested interest in whipping up the fear of crime would be the ones who ended up controlling our police force. They would not make rational decisions about where crime is high, which problems need to be tackled and what type of policing would have the greatest impact. They would act solely out of narrow prejudice, bias and political positioning. That would damage the police and the public's relations with the police.
	Such a policy makes a nice soundbite—it is superficially attractive—but it would have long-term consequences that none of us should want. I am glad that the shadow Home Secretary decided not to refer to that part of the motion because I would have hated to hear him trying to defend such a thing. It is in our interests to drop such notions, which would not help us to tackle crime but would damage the public's relationship with the police. I cannot see how any decent law-abiding citizen would gain from that.

Damian Green: Like many hon. Members, I was moved and horrified by the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson)—moved because we all share his heartfelt wish that the terrible recent shooting in Nottingham acts as a turning point for the local community, and horrified by the picture he painted of daily life in parts of Nottingham, especially for young people. It is terrifying that 12 and 13-year-olds have become inured to becoming drug carriers.
	In the course of the debate, we have heard many facts and figures about the national scene, many of which have been disputed. I shall give a local snapshot to illustrate the reality on the streets of the statistics, and contrast my constituency experience with that of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Gentleman. By timely chance, I spent Saturday night doing what I am sure many hon. Members do regularly: I spent the night patrolling with my local police. Much of what I experienced throws light on issues that are often discussed in terms of national statistics.
	To put my comments in their proper context and to contrast them with those that we have heard about Nottingham, let me say that if my speech sounds like a report from the front line, it should not. My constituency, Ashford, is part urban, part rural, and extremely prosperous. The unemployment rate is less than 2 per cent. and the area is fast growing. Precisely because so many people have moved into the area, the facilities available, especially the night-time entertainment facilities for the sort of young people who often get involved in low-level disorder, are much better than they were 10 years ago. Although there are pockets of deprivation, the background is broadly peaceful and prosperous. If any part of the country ought not to be suffering the sort of violent crime, disorder and drug problems that the debate is about, it is Ashford. Given all that, some of my experiences on Saturday night are instructive and very worrying.
	Having travelled less than 200 yd from the police station in the centre of Ashford, our police van was flagged down. We saw three men: one was lying on the ground, blood pouring from several wounds in his head; the other two were able to stand but they, too, were bleeding from various wounds. It turned out that they had been attacked by another local gang using metal pipes or baseball bats. Whatever had led to the attack—there might be charges, so I cannot give all the details that I know—it was not a drunken punch-up. It took place relatively early in the evening and was not a traditional fight: serious weapons were used and serious injuries inflicted. At the same time—7.30 on Saturday night in a peaceful and prosperous town—another patrol had to leave the station at the same time as us to investigate the smashing of every window on the ground floor of a house in central Ashford, and the spraying of CS gas into that house to act as a form of intimidation.
	As I said, that all took place before 8 pm in a largely peaceful, medium-sized town. In many ways, that is the real world background to our debate. I am giving anecdotal, not statistical, evidence, but several issues thrown up in the course of that Saturday's evening patrol are directly relevant to the introductory speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), particularly the issue of guns and knives. Several hon. Members have discussed the remarks of Mr. Paul Evans about whether we should be more worried about gun or knife crime on our streets. The answer clearly is that we should be worried about both, and I am sure that the Minister is. Statistically, there are far more knife crimes than gun crimes, but if gun crime is increasing she, I am sure, will be extremely worried.
	In the context of our discussion about Nottingham, it is interesting to relay the views of the Ashford police who, thankfully, say that there is not a gun culture in the town or in that part of Kent. There are serious drug dealers who carry guns, but the problem is not nearly as prevalent as it is in other towns and cities. Knives, however, have been a growing problem for some years. Kent police are a good, proactive force, and they have a strategy for dealing with the problem. Their basic method involves the proactive use of stop-and-search, which, they assure me, works. The word is out on the streets, so that people who a few years ago thought it fashionable to carry knives, know that they are taking a big risk if they do so in Ashford. If a police car goes past, officers are likely to get out and stop and search such individuals. The net result is a reduction in the use of knives in and around the town, so such policing works.
	Similarly, the police use a stop-and-search technique to attack known drug dealers in the locality, and they find it very effective. One of the strongest points that I absorbed from my evening patrolling was that they are extremely worried that the Government's extra demands will discourage such activities. If they are required to fill in forms every time they stop someone, let alone stop and search them, they are worried that young constables who are being trained will never get into the habit of using stop-and-search properly. They will be deterred from doing part of their job which the police know is effective in helping to stamp out the type of violent crime that we are debating. In addition, it will be more difficult to obtain intelligence.
	I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who made an excellent speech, but appeared to decry the concept of intelligence-led policing, which was pioneered by the Kent force and has proved effective in many ways. The police say that without intelligence they cannot operate effectively against the most serious criminals. One of the best ways of gathering intelligence is to be out on the streets, constantly stopping people and talking to them. I hope that Ministers will take heed of the message that anything that deters police from undertaking such activities will probably lead to a net increase in violence.
	Many hon. Members have spoken about young people on the streets. My information is that it is now quite usual in Ashford to find children as young as five out on their own after dark, which I find appalling. Such behaviour is standard for teenagers. At about 10.55 pm, just before most pubs turned out their clientele, we came across two young boys outside the local video stop on the high street. When we stopped and asked them whether they were waiting for someone to come out of the shop, they said no, they had just been in there on their own. They both lived about a mile away and were just hanging around the high street at 11 o'clock on a Saturday night. It was another sign of the effectiveness of proactive police intervention that, having been talked to and told to go home by the police, they both walked off. We followed them in the police van and they went home. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to hold the Government responsible for the fact that teenage boys think it reasonable to be out on their own, but if we rely on the police to try to deal with such problems—frankly, we should rely on parents rather than the police—anything such as form-filling that keeps them off the streets is a bad thing.
	The subject of drugs is clearly central to much of our discussion. I agree with many points made by Members on both sides of the House, and shall merely add a wry observation. A poster on the wall at Ashford police station reminds officers that cannabis is still illegal, and that they can still arrest people for possession. The existence of such a poster in a police station suggests that it is not just teenagers who are confused about whether or not cannabis is illegal. If police officers who deal with the problem have to be told that it is, Ministers are deluding themselves if they think that they have not sent out mixed messages on cannabis. As a society, we need to resolve the debate. If cannabis is still illegal—and it is—that message needs to be spelled out much more clearly.
	Returning to the issue of stop-and-search, during the evening we came across known local drug dealers. Officers jumped out of the van and stopped and searched them. No one was found to have anything on them, but the technique of disrupting the lives of known serious drug dealers is an extremely effective way of keeping a lid on the drug problem. Again, if Ministers make decisions that make it more difficult for the police to conduct such searches, they should reverse them. The increased paperwork that the police must undertake when they stop people and the ambiguity of the drugs message are two examples of the way in which Government policy has reduced the effectiveness of local police, who are conscientious, hard-working and intelligent.
	I move on to the statistical facts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said that he wished to deal only in real facts and figures, so I shall please him by quoting from Home Office figures, which I hope those on the Government Front Bench will not challenge. The Kent recorded crime statistics show that violence against the person was up 11.7 per cent. between 2003 and 2004, and sexual offences were up 7 per cent.

Stephen McCabe: I am not in any sense disputing the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes, but would I be right to think that violence against the person includes domestic violence cases, on which the police have been instructed to take a tougher line?

Damian Green: And rightly so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that domestic violence is as serious as any other type of violence. If the statistics include that, so they should. I want to paint a realistic picture. Not every statistic from the Kent recorded crime statistics is going up. Burglary, theft and handling of stolen goods, and fraud and forgery are going down, but criminal damage is up hugely—18.8 per cent.—and overall, total violent crime is up 11.5 per cent. and total offences are up 5.1 per cent.
	Perhaps the most alarming figure is the detection rate. In 1998 the detection rate in Kent was 34 per cent. This year it is 25 per cent. That is key to the problem. We all know that the best deterrence against crime being committed in the first place is the likelihood of being caught. It does not matter what we do with sentencing—if people do not believe they will get caught, they will not be deterred. It is axiomatic that for detection rates to rise, police intelligence needs to be good. For intelligence to be good, officers need to be out of the station talking to people. For officers to be out of the station, they must not be spending half their shift filling in forms. The pledge from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden to reduce the amount of paperwork and to increase the number of officers is central not just to solving the crimes that have been committed, but to deterring future crimes.
	My final point relates to the patrol with which I went out. The patrol looked in at a number of potential trouble spots, or houses where dubious activity was known about, or where the neighbours had been complaining. I therefore spent most of my Saturday night in and around such areas in my constituency. I can tell the House that I was not spending it in the leafier, more comfortable parts of the town or the surrounding villages. The people most likely to be the victims of crime and disorder and with the constant threat of drug dealers around their area are those who are least comfortably off—those who need strong public services, including a strong police force, to make their lives tolerable.
	No one can tell me that tough policing enforced constantly by highly visible police officers is uncompassionate. It is precisely on our most difficult and deprived estates that the quality of life must be improved by tough policing. The Government's failures in this area, by making the job of police officers more difficult, let down most of all the most vulnerable in our society. That is why we need a radical change in policies to cut crime, and why I urge the House to support the motion.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and to reflect on many of the points that he made. The opening speech by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary posited some extremely powerful points. Although those on the Government Benches have criticised that speech for lacking practical points, I think that they are wrong. I hope to add some practical points that particularly relate to the problems and difficulties in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made a powerful speech about the effects of crime, particularly gun crime, in Nottingham. I shall return to that. My constituency is in Newark and Retford, and although it is in Nottinghamshire, it is quite a long way from Nottingham. It takes a good hour to get to Nottingham from where I live. We do not have anything like the level of gun crime that the city of Nottingham has. We have it, but it is nothing like as serious. We do not have the same level of drug crime as Nottingham has. We have it, but it is nothing like as serious. We do not have the level of general violent crime that Nottingham has. We have it, but it is nothing like as serious.
	So why is the vast proportion of my postbag made up of complaints, observations and general whinges about policing in my constituency? The answer is simple. We live in a series of rather prosperous towns and villages, where the pace of life is thoroughly agreeable. But there is a lack of police officers on the streets of Newark and Retford to both deter and reassure, as a result of the operations of the police in Nottingham.
	Perfectly reasonably, the chief constable has to make decisions to concentrate his resources where the problems occur, and that frequently means that officers from our constituency are taken away. It means that people such as Inspector Gary France from Retford and Inspector Jeremy Butler from Newark, whose performances year on year and month on month are impressive, and who are getting on top of the crime that we face in our small market towns and doing a good job, have grave difficulties in engaging with the public and making sure that the public whom they serve are thoroughly reassured. The difficulty is simply a lack of resources.
	You could have been forgiven, Madam Deputy Speaker, for concluding from what has been said tonight that the city of Nottingham—I appreciate that there is at least one Nottingham Member on the Labour Benches, and one former Nottingham Member on the Opposition Benches—is some sort of lawless hell hole. Interestingly, however, Stephen Green, the chief constable, has pointed out that shootings in the city of Nottingham are 40 per cent. down over the past two years. There have been initiatives such as Operation Lance, which is a bit of political hot potato and is targeted principally against Jamaican drug crime. Some 340 drug arrests have occurred as a result of Operation Lance, while Operation Stealth, which has been running for the past two years, has resulted in the arrest of almost 1,000 people. The sentences of those convicted amount to more than 1,000 years, yet the operation has been carried out by only 25 officers. That suggests that things in Nottingham are not quite as bad as the press and public may perceive.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman said that Operation Lance was targeted against Jamaican drug crime. I am sure that that is the case, but I wish to make the point—it may be a minor one—that much of what is described as Jamaican drug crime is carried out by British-born black kids, and some of them are of Jamaican origin, while others are not. In a way, it is the involvement of the British-born black kids that is more frightening for society as it goes forward.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. That is why I underlined the fact that Operation Lance was a bit of a political hot potato. This operation has specifically targeted those who are Jamaicans by birth and are being welcomed into the city of Nottingham by a mixture of black and white drug gangs, and it has been very successful.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South made the point that the sad and unnecessary shooting of Danielle Beccan was a watershed. That is absolutely right, because there is no doubt that we in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire felt that things were improving. Without detaining the House too long, I may say that it is interesting to note that this shooting came in a climate of lack of expectation; there was no warning and no intelligence to suggest what was going to happen. It seems to have been completely random, unlike the planned shootings that take place between criminal organised gangs. Such a shooting was almost impossible to stop from the point of view of Nottingham police, and it was particularly depressing in that regard.
	The fact remains that if these remarkable statistics can be achieved by Nottingham and Nottinghamshire police, how much more could be achieved if the correct level of resourcing was given to them? In particular, what would happen if some specific points were being dealt with much more imaginatively? I wish to mention three of those points. First, the police would like to use covert operations much more than they currently can. The difficulty with such operations is clear; they are extremely expensive in terms of money, manpower and training. The "more cops for Notts" campaign is a pretty blunt and unrefined campaign. Perhaps the answer is not just more cops for Notts, but more specialised cops.
	Secondly, as has been pointed out, there is the programme of witness protection. It is very difficult for the police to produce convictions if witnesses do not feel secure and are unwilling to come forward. Will the Minister comment on the possibility of anonymous evidence being permitted in court to allow witness protection to be more effective?
	My final point is hardly innovative and has already been referred to in passing: there are hardened users of both drugs and guns, but on top of that a gun and knife culture exists, particularly inside the city of Nottingham. How can youngsters be weaned off that culture? How can they be taught that to be big on the street does not necessarily involve being tooled up and that they do not need to carry a firearm or blade?
	We have heard several statistics tonight about youngsters from around the country being found with weapons on them. When children are found carrying weapons, the police are frequently blamed without much thought being given to the problem. Several different initiatives have been implemented in Nottingham, many of which were instigated by the city council. If those programmes were more coherent and subject to national leadership, if there were set targets and more proper organisations, and if the approach were less random, maybe the culture of the carriage of guns and weapons by children might be overcome.
	So much for the city of Nottingham specifically, although it is interesting that since I was elected Nottinghamshire police have constantly discussed the need for an extra 1,000 officers. Tonight, we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that Nottinghamshire police have received about a 7 per cent. increase in their number of officers, and I have seen a number of CSOs deployed on to the streets of both Newark and Retford. However, a 7 per cent. increase and a few CSOs is only a handful of officers. Will the Minister tell me why nothing more has been done to add more officers and resources to Nottinghamshire constabulary? Is that just a convenient excuse that a failing police force trots out time and again to defend itself—I think not—or are Nottingham and Nottinghamshire a special case that needs special attention?
	To stop tragedies such as that of Danielle Beccan happening again, my county and that city need some form of special attention as a matter of urgency. In the comfortable towns of Newark and Retford, the police bear the blunt of the blame for the lack of officers. Instead of a trusting relationship between people and police, Government policy and Government under-investment mean that a wedge is being driven between the service and the people. That state of affairs is disgraceful, and I call upon the Government to do something about it now.

Parmjit Dhanda: First, I reiterate my earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). Understandably, many hon. Members mentioned the tragic case of Danielle Beccan, but it is also important to get across the fact that Nottingham is a vibrant, exciting, diverse and sought-after place in which to live. As I said earlier, I spent five of the happiest years of my life in Nottingham as a student at Nottingham university.
	When I first became an MP in 2001, I held a surgery in one of the slightly more leafy areas of my constituency, Quedgeley. A mother who came to visit me told me that she had to spend time in local car parks in the city centre trying to get hold of heroin for her teenage son because of the 16-week wait for methadone. Earlier this year, I opened a drug rehabilitation centre in the heart of my constituency, and that 16-week wait for methadone is now a five-week wait. That is real progress, so we must keep things in context.
	Statistics represent another element of the debate. People always talk about lies, damn lies and statistics, so which set of statistics can we really trust? The Conservatives certainly believed in the British crime survey when they came up with it in 1982, and I dare say they believed in it when it suggested that crime figures were going up, but they need to believe in it now, as do we all. We should not lose trust in it because it shows that vehicle crime is down by half, house burglary is down by 47 per cent., assault is down by 43 per cent., wounding is down by 28 per cent., and vandalism is down by 27 per cent. But who are we to be trusted? We are just politicians. It is anybody's guess whether people in the Public Gallery or viewing this debate at home trust the Home Secretary, Home Office Ministers or, indeed, the Opposition, but I would say to them, "If you are not going to trust us with regard to these statistics, who should you trust?"
	In my constituency and in almost every other, people should trust their local police. I know what my local police are saying loud and clear, because they said it last month in a local newspaper, the "Gloucester Citizen". On 14 September, they commented on local crime statistics and gave two reasons for them: first, their innovation at a local level; and secondly, the resourcing that they are receiving from Government. Not one, two or three but four of the most senior police officers in the Gloucestershire constabulary were quoted in the article. The assistant chief constable, Craig Mackey, said:
	"This has been a truly remarkable start to the 2004/5 operational year."
	The chief constable, Dr. Tim Brian, said:
	"It demonstrates the success of the investment and changes we made in 2003".
	There is slightly more explanation in the remarks of a man whom I know very well, the chief superintendent of the Forest and Gloucester division, Chris Merrick, who says:
	"Our efforts around controlling the supply of controlled drugs on the streets of Gloucester have also had an impact on crime generally".
	Perhaps the person who goes furthest—my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will know him better than I do—is Chief Inspector Jim McCarthy of the Cotswolds and Stroud division, who said of the statistics:
	"They prove that our intelligence-led approach to reducing the opportunities for committing crime is paying off."
	So what are the key innovations and what difference are they making at a local level in my community, as in communities all over the country? There has been a release of 17 additional police officer posts for general policing duties—that means more bobbies on the beat—through the civilianisation of custody detention officers, and there have been 61 additional community support officers, 31 of whom have been funded above and beyond the Government match funding figure. I hope that police forces that have stuck their necks out by trying to innovate in the same way as the Gloucestershire constabulary will be rewarded when their settlements come up later in the year. That innovation has made a significant difference locally. Overall crime is down by 19.2 per cent., domestic burglary is down by 27.2 per cent., and vehicle crime is down by 31.8 per cent. Perhaps most significantly, the level of crime fell by one third—33 per cent.—between last August and this August.
	The other key element is resourcing. Several hon. Members spoke about resourcing, and not least the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who made an eloquent plea for an extra 1,000 police officers. This debate comes up year after year, and usually in May in areas such as mine, when there is an election around the corner, so a couple of years ago I decided to request a study by the House of Commons Library to consider the pattern of policing in Gloucestershire and the number of civilian support staff and police officers down the ages, all the way back to 1979.
	It is an interesting pattern. Back in 1979, Gloucestershire constabulary had 1,096 police officers. In fairness to the Thatcher Government, police numbers then went up, peaking in 1984 at 1,149. The figure then stayed largely the same, varying up and down a bit, and peaking in 1992 at 1,174. That was the highest number of police officers that we ever had under the Tories—back in 1992—and from then on the number kept dropping, right the way through until 1999, when the Government had changed and had put in the resources. However, one cannot turn the battleship around in a couple of years. In 1999, there were only 1,104 officers, less than there had been in 1992.
	Since then, the rural policing fund, which has brought us about £750,000, and the crimefighting fund, which is over and above our annual settlement and has been worth about £4 million to my constituency in the past four years, have made a huge difference. When the work was done for me back in 2002, we had 1,183 officers—far more than ever before—and 545 civilian support staff, compared with only 367 in 1992. I know that hon. Members may argue that civilian support staff are not that important or that we could get rid of them and have more officers on the beat, but one cannot say that, because some of these people do jobs that make it easier for officers to get out on the beat. For example, there are civilian statement takers.
	Those figures were for 2002. This morning, I decided to get in touch with the Library again. I was told that on 31 December 2003 the constabulary had 1,269 officers—far more than it had even in 2002—and the number of support staff had grown from the 1992 figure of 367 to 738. We have had innovation and resources, making a difference and reducing crime in my constituency by a third between August last year and August this year.

Bill Wiggin: Would not it have been even better for Gloucester if the hon. Gentleman had been able to cite an increase not only in civilian back-up but in jobs for real police officers?

Parmjit Dhanda: I like the hon. Gentleman immensely and he makes some very good points in the House, but he was not listening to what I was saying. I said that we had 1,269 police officers—more than we have ever had before; and for the first time in the history of Gloucestershire, we have more than 1,000 constables. Compare the figures with those of years gone by, and they reveal a huge difference. On top of that, we have additional civilian staff and 61 community support officers, 31 of whom are funded—this is a message for my own Front Benchers—over and above the match funding figure. It is a right to take such decisions at local level, and police authorities and constabularies can do so. Innovating in that way demonstrates that they can reduce crime statistically.
	I say not just to Members of this House but to members of the public listening to this debate in the Chamber, on television or on the radio that if they if they are not prepared to trust the statistics of the British crime survey and other organisations, and if they are unwilling to trust what Ministers or Back Benchers such as I say—if so, they are unlikely to trust Opposition Front Benchers, either—they should listen to and trust local police officers, who are saying that crime is going down and that they are better resourced than ever, and in areas such as mine, they are also innovating like never before.

Bill Wiggin: I reciprocate by pointing out that I am fond of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who is doing his very best to defend a difficult position. He will remember that "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was one of the promises that, sadly for the people of Britain, simply has not proven true. People feel less safe than they did seven years ago, and not without good cause.
	The facts on Labour's crime record speak for themselves. Well over 1 million violent crimes are committed every year in the UK, and crime is rising year after year. Some 800,000 more offences are committed each year compared with 1998–99; that equals an extra 90 crimes every hour, compared with five years ago.
	Of course, the Government try to hide behind selective statistics and changes in the recording of crime. So why, then, do adjusted records since the method of recording was changed still show an increase in crime? Violence against the person went up by 14 per cent. between 2002–03 and 2003–04. The number of serious assaults has increased by more than 1,000, and there were 30,000 of the less serious, injury-causing crimes in the past year. The number of sexual offences is up; criminal damage is up; and total violent crime is up by more than 100,000 offences since 2002.
	In my constituency, the number of thefts of motor vehicles has risen by 5 per cent. in the past year. It is a telling sign of the state of crime in Britain that this seems to be a relatively lucky situation. We should consider some of the crime rate figures for Wales. In the last year, robbery offences were up by 30 per cent., and sexual offences in Dyfed-Powys increased by 90 per cent. Robbery offences in south Wales went up by 71 per cent. Violent crime has risen almost twice as fast in Wales as in Manchester or London. No matter what we do with these figures, it is impossible to conceal what everyone in Britain already knows—that crime is soaring.
	Yet this is not all that we have to worry about. Detection rates are falling. More crimes are being committed, yet fewer criminals are being punished for them. In fact, detection rates have sunk to just 23 per cent. For every 100 crimes, 77 are left unsolved. Nearly four out of every five criminals are left unpunished, and for all the unpunished criminals, there are the many victims of crime who are left knowing that justice has not been done. No wonder people feel disappointed. We are living in a country in which the law-abiding majority are losing out. People do not feel safe going about their everyday life because the system is leaving criminals to roam our streets.
	According to a survey carried out last year, nearly a quarter of adult females admitted to feeling "very unsafe" when they were out at night. People are unable to go out and enjoy themselves because they do not feel safe in their own towns. Crimes are left unreported because people have no hope of the criminals being caught, or because they know that if they are caught, the punishment will probably not fit the crime. Not only have crime rates grown and detection rates fallen in the past seven years, we have also witnessed the introduction of schemes that impose on criminals punishments that simply do not bring justice, so even when offenders are caught, there is no guarantee that they will be punished fairly.
	We know that Labour's early release scheme has led to 3,600 crimes being committed by people who were let out of prison early. Earlier this year, the Home Office confirmed plans to hire a public relations firm to launch a £1 million pound publicity drive. What for? Its purpose is to increase public confidence in alternatives to sending convicted criminals to jail. People do not want alternatives to sending criminals to jail; they want their money to be spent on more effective policing to stop crime. They want it to be spent on safe prisons to hold dangerous criminals. They want prisons to hold the 100,000 prisoners predicted by 2010, not 20,000 fewer prisons, as the Home Office is planning.
	The Home Secretary has rejected pressures for a major prison-building programme. Instead, he wants to refurbish prisons and use weekend jail sentences for convicted criminals. Perhaps he has been listening to the Liberal Democrats—not sending burglars to prison, abolishing mandatory life sentences for serial rapists and cutting prison sentences for people who deal in ecstasy and cannabis. The fact remains that the soft approach to crime will not work.
	No one is suggesting that all criminals should be sent to prison and that there should be no alternative. Of course rehabilitation and help should be available as well. We need to combine effective support with effective punishments. We need better, more rehabilitative sentences for persistent offenders. Two issues perhaps stand out more than any others here—young offenders and those affected by drug misuse.
	Young offenders are being failed by the present system. The Government introduced an intensive surveillance and supervision programme for young offenders, a community sentence involving curfews and 25 hours a week of education and therapy. Yet that was completed by fewer than half those sent on it over the past year. The way in which jail sentences are being managed is not working either. Just 7 per cent. of young offenders were given custodial sentences last year, yet providing prison places for young offenders cost the Youth Justice Board £283 million of its £394 million budget. Of those, 80 per cent re-offended on their release, so nearly 70 per cent. of the Youth Justice Board's budget was spent on successfully punishing and rehabilitating just 1.4 per cent. of young offenders. Once again, something is clearly not working here. Tackling young offenders properly would prevent those youths from going on to a lifetime of crime and destruction. It is one of the most important aspects of bringing crime down. It is more than just punishment; it is prevention. Prevention is one of the keys to fighting crime in Britain, as is tackling the drug problem.
	It does not take much to realise that the current system is failing criminals with drug problems as well. Britain now has a million or so hard drug addicts. [Interruption.] We all know that drug addiction often leads to other crimes, such as violence, theft, robbery and organised crime—

Caroline Flint: That is rubbish. Get the facts right.

Bill Wiggin: I hear Government Front Benchers claiming that the figures are wrong. I wish that they were and I hope that the Government will continue to do more to cut crime, but they are not succeeding.
	The Prison Service now believes that in some jails up to 80 per cent. of prisoners are hard drug users. Other estimates suggest that half of all crime is drug related. We should think how many crimes could be prevented if drug offenders were treated effectively, but it is simply not happening. There are examples everywhere of the failure of the Government's methods for tackling drug crime. In my own constituency of Leominster, known drug dealers are left unpunished. Indeed, local people have been to see me to express their anger and despair at the fact that drug dealers are flouting the law, openly selling drugs on the streets and laughing in the face of justice. Drug addicts need to be given the simple choice between rehabilitation and criminal punishment. We want a system that will work for everyone and not leave drug addicts to suffer and hurt others. Harm done to others is, of course, one of the saddest results of crime.
	Let us consider the increasing problem with gun crime in the UK. We do not have to look any further than the tragic news stories that come out so often nowadays to realise that gun crime is growing. The facts and figures are there to prove it. Home Office figures show that, in England and Wales, there were nearly 25,000 firearm offences in 2003–04 compared with fewer than 15,000 in 1998–99. Firearms used in crimes, excluding air weapons, increased by 36 per cent. between 2000 and 2003, and the number of firearm fatalities has increased from 49 in 1998–99 to 81 in 2002–03. However, clamping down on legal gun owners is not going to help matters. Forcing more and more legislation on responsible, law-abiding gun owners is not going to help cut crime. I do not believe that any of the firearms crimes were committed by legal owners of guns. It is time to think again on that. If I am wrong, I know that the responsible Minister will intervene, but I suspect that she is thinking that suicide is the only crime in which a legitimate owner may have used a gun against himself. Making legislative changes, which the Government believe will help, will not succeed in tackling the problem.
	It is also time to think again not just on crime, but on the way our police work. Our police work hard. Unfortunately, they have to spend most of their time hard at work at their desks, buried under the unnecessary paperwork that the Home Secretary has forced on them. Just 17 per cent. of police time is spent out on patrol—and most of that in vehicles. We do not need much of the super-political correctness that leads to most of that red tape—the sort that requires forms to be filled in every time a policeman stops or speaks to someone in the street, even if that person has not done anything wrong and it would be a waste of time to take down details. Of course, it does matter. The police should be on our streets, where we need them and, importantly, where they want to be. They should be visible and active within the community, where they are clearly failing at the moment. Survey after survey reveals that people feel the presence of police on their streets is too low.
	The police should be able to focus on their local issues. They should not be chained to Government directives affecting everything they do. Policing plans, targets, funds and grants are forced on to them at national level, without consideration for local priorities. The Government provide up to 85 per cent. of police funding. A significant amount of that money is granted through specific ring-fenced funds. That means that what is in many cases desperately needed cash has to be spent on particular schemes, such as community support officers. There is no guarantee that such schemes will be the best form of policing for an area. Local police, not Whitehall, should be tackling the issues that matter most in their area. Nor should the police have to worry about the 58 performance criteria—a ridiculous number—or the best value regime, which add to their work load. They should also be accountable to the residents of the area they police, which cannot happen while they are so controlled by the Government.
	The Government make much of the increase in police numbers in their time in power. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gloucester—my neighbour—did so in his contribution. But we all know how much police authority precepts—the income from council tax—have increased in that time. The £955.5 million increase between 2000–01 and 2003–04 could have paid for an extra 19,100 police officers. That is nearly 7,000 more than were actually recruited. So even the improvements are not all that they might have seemed to be. We have more police officers, but not as many as we could have had.
	Many of the additional police officers are part of the community support schemes and are officers with very limited powers. They are police officers, but not as we know them. The Government need to realise that their schemes are not working. We need many more police and many more prison places. Community sentences simply are not effective, and approaches such as the early release scheme are impractical and dangerous. Red tape and bureaucracy are stopping our police forces doing their job. The people of Britain deserve better than to live in fear of criminals. It is the criminals who should be living in fear of punishment. There is no escaping the fact that crime is a growing scourge on the lives of people in Britain.
	The new regulations and initiatives that the Government have introduced on crime are worthless if they have no effect. We all want a decline in crime and an effective system for rehabilitating criminals. We all want to make Britain's streets safer. Unfortunately, the Government are failing to achieve that.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to have a chance to speak in this important debate and I have listened with care to the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the House. For more than a decade, gun crime has cast a shadow over my constituency. Sadly, every so often an incident occurs, normally involving a young girl or girls, such as the incident in Nottingham or the incident in Birmingham 18 months ago, and for a few days gun crime makes the headlines and we have debates in the House. But in Hackney, parts of Brent, Lambeth and Southwark and other inner-city areas in Birmingham and Manchester, gun crime has taken its toll year in and year out for a decade.
	It is always important to remember in our discussions that levels of gun crime in this country are still only a fraction of those in cities such as New York and Chicago. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on the steps that they have taken to deal with the gun crime menace—including increasing sentences for carrying a firearm and funding community organisations that address the issue. My Labour colleague, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has also been responsible for putting many more policemen on the streets of London, with the results that we see.
	The particular problem of urban gun crime that I face in Hackney seems to be rediscovered every 18 months or so. We have always had armed professional criminals who commit a crime, take the gun home and put it away, but what has been happening on the streets of inner London for more than a decade is new. For young men—it is primarily young men—going out routinely armed is part of their style. They are not dressed to go out clubbing of an evening unless they carry a gun. The notion of guns as a style accessory that is part of a person's culture is new. As an east-end MP, I know all about professional armed robbers, but what we see on the streets of Hackney, Lambeth, Brent and Southwark is something else. We see young people for whom the gun culture is part and parcel of their youth culture.
	Although the level of gun crime is tiny and it is important not to sensationalise it, the fact that an increasing number of innocent passers-by are caught up in the crossfire creates real fear in inner-city communities. The people most likely to be on the receiving end of a bullet fired by a professional armed criminal is another professional armed criminal and, sadly, security guards. In Hackney, however, people waiting at a bus stop have been caught up in gun crime. People have gone to clubs, a gun has been fired in one room, the bullet has travelled through a wall and has hit an innocent person in another room. Most recently, an 18-month-old child was shot as a result of a gun incident. Such pervasive and random crime creates fear in the community out of all proportion to the statistics.
	In the short term, it cannot be repeated often enough that the majority of gun crimes are performed with replica weapons that have been re-engineered. I have asked Ministers about that before and heard about the difficulties of definition. I can only repeat that the police and people in the community want a complete ban on replicas. It cannot be beyond the wit of Home Office lawyers and the great brains that advise Ministers to devise a way of dealing with the menace of replicas that does not mean arresting children for carrying toys. The majority of the guns involved in inner-city gun-crime incidents are replicas. As has been said, a policeman called out to an incident at which there is a gun does not know whether he faces a replica or a real gun. It will not be too long before a policeman opens fire only to find that he has fired on a kid with a replica. I urge Ministers to consider a total ban of replica weapons.
	Other steps need to be taken to keep guns off the street in the short term. I am chairman of the all-party group on gun crime, which last year took evidence on the subject. We were concerned to find that Customs does not keep records of the number of guns it confiscates when people try to smuggle them into the country. It needs to make gun crime more of a priority by tracking guns going in and out of the country. It is extraordinary that it cannot produce those figures. We need a more joined-up approach to gun crime, that embraces what is happening in Customs. Those are some of the short-term measures.
	In the medium term, we need to do something about witness protection. A witness to a major gangland killing will be whisked away by the police, have their identity changed and the rest of it. Unfortunately, in Hackney, as in other inner-city areas, gun crime is almost too routine for that to happen. I cannot speak for Nottingham, Gloucester or other parts of the country, but gun crime in inner-city London is not stranger crime. By and large, people know who committed the crimes. If they do not know the individual, they know the gang.
	The problem is that people are still frightened to come forward, because they believe that the police cannot protect them. As I have told Ministers before, more needs to be done to protect witnesses, not only witnesses to major gangland killings but to the intermediate type of gun crime. A middle-aged woman visited my advice session. She was a churchgoer and had gone to court as a witness. Since seeing someone go down for a gun crime, that woman, who is in her 60s, has had to move four times. She rings the police to ask for help, but the trial is over and they no longer have a role.
	How can we crack down on gun crime if people who genuinely want to be witnesses feel that the police cannot protect them? We need to focus on witness protection, not just for major crimes but for the intermediate gun crime that is tragically an everyday reality in my constituency.

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Lady knows, I support her hugely in what we are trying to do in the all-party group. May I add one more thing to her list? It is about victim support. My experience is that if people know that when they give evidence or a statement to the police it is bound to mean that they have to go to court, they will not come forward; whereas if they know that they can talk to the police but that a separate process requires their consent for the use of that evidence, we will receive much more evidence. People are willing to share information, but not if the result is their having to stand publicly in the witness box six months later.

Diane Abbott: That is a reasonable point. It is all too easy to bandy statistics on the subject, but I am looking at practical steps forward for people who face the reality of gun crime day in, day out. That would help my constituents, who want to go to court and see criminals behind bars but are terrified and, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, do not feel that the police can or will afford them protection, especially once the criminal has actually been sent to prison.
	The police cannot fight gun crime on their own. It is in the nature of inner-city gun crime that the community often knows who is behind it. It is vital to have links with the community and to work with it. The Metropolitan police have shown the way with Operation Trident, although there is always more that could be done, but they were ahead of many police forces in realising that they had to enlist the support of the community.
	The House may not welcome what I am about to say, but I have to point out that there is a history between many inner-London communities and the Metropolitan police. For centuries, the history in Hackney has been that Hackney people do not grass—rightly or wrongly. When, in addition, we consider some of the incidents of brutality and corruption that have characterised some inner-city police stations, we have to acknowledge that history. I say to the community that we must put the suspicions and issues of the past behind us, and work with the police to put criminals behind bars. However, I say to the House and the police that there is a history and we must work to bring the community and the police together.
	I now turn to the long term. As I said, gun crime has been a problem in Hackney for more than a decade. Years before the House was talking about it, years before the papers were talking about it, people were coming to me saying, "We see people on the bus with these guns. What is going on?" What really brought the situation home to me was when, four or five years ago, officers from Operation Trident showed me slides that they had taken of people who had died as a result of gun crime—the actual criminals, the young men carrying the guns. I saw pictures of young black men, not much older than my son, lying face-down in pools of blood and I asked myself, "What has our community come to that young people hold their lives and their communities so cheap that they will throw away their lives?" And for what? For nothing.
	Gun crime is a particular tragedy for the communities in which it occurs. I have spoken of the fear that criminals often engender and of how people are frightened to come forward, but it is a tragedy for communities that there is a generation of young men, even if it is only a minority, who are so socially alienated that carrying a gun and being the muscle for a hard-drug operation is the height of their aspiration.
	Obviously, criminals commit crime, but criminals are created from a pool of social alienation, and part of that alienation is the frightening, continuing educational underachievement of black boys in our schools system. I have said this before, but I will say it again: we cannot allow a situation where, year after year, other ethnic groups catch up with white children—in some cases, overtaking them—and black boys continue to fall further behind. Unless we address the underlying causes of that social alienation, a proportion of young people, a fraction, will always fall through the school system, fall into social alienation and become prey to the gun culture.
	I would advise against exaggerating gun crime in this country—it is nothing like what is seen in the United States—but I have no doubt, as a mother, a resident and a Member of Parliament in somewhere that has been a hot spot for gun crime for more than 10 years, that it creates fear in the hearts of residents, even if the figures about what is likely to happen and whether they are likely to see it are relatively low.
	Thanks to the work of Operation Trident, gun crime has begun to recede. Trident has been successful, but there is more to be done. We cannot afford to let 18-month-old children become the victims of gun crime. We cannot afford to lose even one life to gun crime, so I urge Ministers to consider taking practical steps about replica weapons, to consider witness protection issues and to help those in Operation Trident work closely with other police forces to roll out its lessons about the importance of listening to the community. Above all, I urge Ministers to look at why some young men in some of our big cities seem to feel that life has nothing more to offer them than demonstrating their masculinity and status by holding on to guns.
	It is tragic that, every 18 months, hon. Members get up in the House to say, "We have reached a watershed on this issue." We heard that about the Birmingham shootings; we have heard it today. This is not just about the rare case of a young girl that excites public opinion; some of us will not be satisfied until the relentless, week-on-week toll that gun crime causes in our communities is ended.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Time is running short, so I wish to consider a specific point about crime in the south-west. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is in his place, and I face a particular problem in that Avon and Somerset police force is involved in a difficult balancing act because it covers the conurbation of Bristol and a vast rural area to the south. I pay tribute to its chief constable, Steve Pilkington. The last time that the Home Secretary set targets to reduce burglary in urban areas, it decreased by 8 per cent. in the urban area, but it increased by 8 per cent. in Somerset. The reason is that the resources had to be put into Bristol to fight crime there. In the latest round, more than two thirds of the officers who have been created have gone to Bristol, with few coming to the rural areas. That has exacerbated the problem of rural crime.
	We also have a problem with the M5 making it easy for criminals and others to move quickly around the west country. Rural crime is becoming more and more of a problem, which, as far as I can see, the Government have not addressed in any way or form. In the past week, three support officers have been created for the whole of the west of Somerset. That is it; no new policemen have been created. We had some parish wardens, but the problem was that the Government removed the funding and told the district councils that they could take them on. The districts councils could not afford to do so. We made representations, but we got absolutely no joy.
	The problem is that it is getting harder to do the jobs that we need to do. We have heard a lot about gun crime in Hackney. Luckily, we have had only one gun crime on Exmoor, but when the police support units that were coming down from Bristol and up from Exeter got there, they realised that their radios do not work on Exmoor—a fundamental problem when dealing with an incident with a gun. The incident was contained and dealt with, but the police could not operate normally when they got up on to the moor. The person was eventually brought down and the situation was resolved. If we are going to create extra police, their numbers must be distributed fairly. It is easy to say that we have created 1,000 or 10,000 more police, but if they are not distributed to do the job, we will be failing people.
	We face another problem that has not been covered in the debate. We have lost our probation officers: one end of my constituency has none now and the other has one for half a day a week. As we well know, the probation service in Bristol has just asked whether the courts in Somerset could just take a quota of court reports. The quota suggested is under half of what is required per month. The courts cannot physically do their job, because there are not enough probation officers. The justices of the peace are under more and more pressure to sort out serious crime and crime generally, but they cannot obtain the reports that they need. The Government have not addressed the problem, even though Members from Somerset have pushed it time and again. In fact, the problem has got worse over the past few months, because the justices of the peace cannot do their job.
	I pay tribute to one measure that has been a great success—the antisocial behaviour order. In rural areas where one family causes the trouble, we know exactly who they are and what they are doing. In one of the large villages in my constituency, we faced a terrible problem with a family who, interestingly enough, had been moved from an urban conurbation. The police applied for an order, got it and resolved the problem. However, in the meantime, urban area problems that we are not used to were placed upon us and the police could not deal with them because they had no experience of them. However, the Bristol police came to the area and resolved the problem.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) wishes to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks. I ask the Government to distribute police numbers fairly. We cannot fight rural crime in the same way as we fight urban crime. Chief constables, such as Steve Pilkington who was criticised by the Home Secretary for no fault of his own, are just not able to deal with it.

Angela Watkinson: The premise of my speech was to illustrate that if antisocial behaviour and low-level crime go unchecked, they escalate into more serious crime and, at the other end of the spectrum, to the gun crime that has been the subject of this debate.
	I was in the main police station in my constituency recently for the celebration of the 175th anniversary of the Metropolitan police. It was a rather happy occasion, with a splendid cake—it was a shame to cut it. While I was there, I made a shocking discovery. A row of posters on the wall showed the successes of Havering police in exceeding the targets set by the Metropolitan police for clearing up crime in certain categories. Havering was first out of 32 London boroughs in the detection rate for total notifiable offences, second for vehicle crime, fourth for robbery and 12th for residential robbery. I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating Havering police on their excellent achievement in scoring way above its targets. What shocked me was that the Metropolitan police clear-up rate for total notifiable offences is 20 per cent. It gets worse. For residential burglary, the figure is 17 per cent., for robbery 16 per cent. and—wait for it because this is the real shocker—for vehicle crime it is 5 per cent. If the figure were any lower, stealing, damaging or breaking into a car would be a non-crime. This is corporate trivialisation of crimes that are the breeding ground for yet more serious crime. Such crimes need to be treated seriously so that young criminals do not become bolder and turn into serious criminals.
	I telephoned my main police station last night and asked why it had taken so long for Havering to issue its first antisocial behaviour order. I asked what police resources and time have to be invested into achieving an ASBO. An officer replied and referred to the youngster involved. He said:
	"I identified him as a burgeoning community problem in July 2003 when he was subject of an ABC"—
	an acceptable behaviour contract—
	"which he breached twice . . . In 2004, he seemed to take off and from April-August committed ten substantive offences of shoplifting/criminal damage/assault and public order, which were not proceeded with essentially because witnesses and victims were unwilling to attend Court through in the main fear of reprisals. There were three other offences which did go to Court—robbery, assault and burglary—for the last, after two supervision orders had failed miserably, he was sentenced to 4 months in prison at a YOI."
	The officer initiated proceedings for an ASBO in June 2004 and finally achieved his objective when it was granted on 22 September. He says:
	"I would not even try to assess the number of hours I have been involved upon this project, but needless to say it was considerable, revisiting victims, reinvestigating allegations, attempting to persuade victims to put their fears to one side and attend Court (unsuccessful), attending multi-agency case conferences, taking third party statements so that I could present the case, jumping over a succession of new hurdles erected by the Defence and sanctioned by the Court. This is on the face of it a user friendly piece of legislation, but in reality, which is exacerbated by the misunderstanding and misinterpretation by the Courts, but mainly the Clerks of the Courts, it has become so unwieldy that Officers tend to shy away from the prospect."
	The measure would be an excellent tool if it were more user-friendly. Although the concept behind ASBOs is good, their methodology needs serious revision. The police need the freedom to use the targets that they feel are most appropriate to their local circumstances.

Andrew Mitchell: We have had a serious debate and I should say at the outset that, although I shall make a few disobliging comments about Government policy, Her Majesty's Opposition have attempted today to consider these serious problems and help the Government to face up to them.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said that the debate would focus largely on Nottingham, as indeed it has. Conservative Members think that Nottingham gives us a powerful warning, not that Britain is consumed by gun crime, but of what could go wrong throughout our society if action is not taken now. My right hon. Friend has visited Nottingham on several occasions and I went there on Saturday. I am pleased to hear that Home Office Ministers will go there shortly to find out what can be done to help. The Home Secretary said that he understood the problem. Although we take him at his word, we expect him to take the necessary action.
	The motion is specific and addresses, above all, gun crime, which has risen steeply in Nottingham. We could have widened the debate in many different ways. For example, we could have dwelt on last week's Metropolitan police figures for London that showed that knife crime had increased by 13 per cent. over the past year and that half the offenders were under the age of 21. We could have considered the figures from Birmingham and Manchester—they will come out shortly, but they have been trailed—that will show a sharp rise in alcohol-fuelled street violence in Britain's towns and cities. We could have considered the general rise in crime and the fall in detection rates, but we wanted to face up today to the dangerous escalation of gun crime.
	Gun crime in this country has risen by 35 per cent. over the past year. In the past 100 days—since the House rose for the summer recess—25 people in Britain have been shot, the youngest of whom was a child in Hackney aged one and a half, and 18 people have died, the latest being 14-year-old Danielle Beccan. In Nottingham alone, there have been 11 fatal shootings over 27 months and there are 17 ongoing murder inquiries. As the House heard earlier, the usually quiet suburb of Arnold, which I had the pleasure of representing for 10 years, was recently the scene of the murder in broad daylight of Marian Bates, a local jeweller.
	We are all sorry that the Home Secretary is not in the Chamber. He chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for citing a figure of 1 million drug users and suggested that that was not true. I can only say that he should read page 64 of his own 2002–03 crime survey for England and Wales on which he will find the direct quote that my right hon. Friend used.
	The Home Secretary talked about bombing Afghanistan, but my right hon. Friend said nothing about bombing Afghanistan. Instead, he outlined to the House the problem of increasing amounts of heroin from that country appearing on our streets and asked the Government to set out their policy to deal with that.
	The Home Secretary then chided my right hon. Friend for what he had said about the 5,000 extra police for eight years, the 20,000 prison places and the 20,000 drug rehabilitation places that are part and parcel of the Conservative party's forthcoming manifesto for the general election. I have just moved from our economic team, and I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: those are costed policies approved by the shadow Chancellor, and they will be introduced when we return to government.
	The right hon. Gentleman then had the nerve to tell the House that the police were burdened with bureaucracy and form-filling because of the Conservative party's parliamentary questions—a statement that was met with astonishment across the House. He then defended the British crime survey—but all Governments use the British crime survey, and all Oppositions look at recorded crime figures. I would also say to the Home Secretary, were he here, that the British crime survey excludes sex offences, illegal drug use, retail crime—of which there were 8.5 million incidents in the past year—gun crime, and crimes against people under 16, which constitute one of the fastest growing categories of crime.
	The Home Secretary's response left us with an impression of his stunning complacency. He did not seem to care much about the six questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, which are extremely important, and to which I shall return later.
	The House then heard a speech by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who defended the seriousness of the shadow Home Secretary's speech and said that he would support us in the Lobby. He also raised points about the locally elected police boards and the use of legitimate firearms, to which I am sure we shall return in due course.
	The House also heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who said that the city of Nottingham was populated by people who are kind, decent and honourable. Having represented some of those people in the suburbs of the city, I entirely agree with him. He also talked about the cynical and cruel theft of childhood, and the need to separate children from drugs and guns. I agree with much of what he said about that too. He said that we must do more to protect our borders from guns and drugs, and made a good point about the lack of necessity for cars to have blacked-out windows, which I hope those on the Government Front Bench will consider carefully. He spoke of his hope that the murder of that little girl nine days ago would be a watershed for Nottingham, and the whole House will agree strongly with him about that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) expressed his concern about villains coming into this country from eastern Europe, and launched a trenchant attack on Government drugs policy. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) endeared herself to the Government Whips Office by the way in which she spoke about law and order issues in her constituency, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) spoke about violent crime rising in Plymouth, the murder of Flo Seccombe and the crisis in mental health services in Plymouth and the rest of Devon. He also asked the Minister a number of questions.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) brought us back to the west midlands, and three times questioned the Conservative party's pledge about the 40,000 extra police. He did so because he knows that that pledge is going down extremely well in his constituency and the rest of Birmingham. The Conservative party's costed promise of 2,414 policemen and women will go down well in the west midlands.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) spent Saturday night on patrol in his constituency, and shared some of his experiences with the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) offered wise words about some of the wider issues on the national stage, as well as issues particular to Nottinghamshire.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—[Interruption.] I apologise if I mispronounced my hon. Friend's constituency. He inveighed against the Home Office's public relations budget, and said that prison works. How right he is.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke about the dreadful events in her constituency, reminded the House of the dreadful events that happened in Birmingham at new year 2003, and gave some insights into the horror of young men carrying guns as fashion accessories—a point that was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
	I visited Nottingham on Saturday and met two representatives of Mothers Against Guns: Janice Collins, whose son Brendan was shot near where Danielle Beccan was murdered, and Christine Bradshaw, whose son Marvyn was murdered at the age of 22; his murderer was convicted in July. Those two dignified and decent women, whose every waking hour has been ruined by the pointless and vile murder of their children, speak for many when they say what needs to be done. I hope that when the Home Office team go to Nottingham, they will have a chance to listen to what that organisation says.
	Mothers Against Guns makes it clear that there are not enough police. Nottinghamshire's chief of police has asked for an extra 1,000 police; under Conservative proposals, he will receive an extra 714 as swiftly as possible. Everyone knows that there are not enough police on our streets and it is extremely important that we get more. The organisation says, rightly, that the five-year minimum sentence for possessing an illegal firearm is not enough. Guns have replaced the baseball bats that gangs carried five to 10 years ago. We need to send the strongest possible message that those who carry, keep, sell, maintain or import firearms illegally will be imprisoned for a very long time. Mothers Against Guns also speaks of the importance of better witness protection, which has been mentioned today, as well as the availability of firearms and the danger of our porous borders, which has been mentioned often in this debate.
	The Government amendment to our motion invites the House to welcome
	"the record falls in crime achieved by this Government since 1997, recognising that the chances of becoming a victim of crime are now at their lowest level since records began".
	What a brass neck and nerve the Government have. Recorded crime has increased in almost every category since 1998. The overall number of offences has increased by 16 per cent., from 5.1 million to 5.9 million. Violence against the person has increased by 90 per cent., sexual offences by 44 per cent, robbery by 51 per cent., total violent crime by 83 per cent. and criminal damage by 37 per cent. Over the same seven-year period, detection rates have fallen. Detection rates for violence against the person have fallen from 79 per cent. in 1997 to 50 per cent.; for sex crime from 77 per cent. to 39 per cent.; for robbery from 27 per cent. to 18 per cent.; for burglary from 23 per cent. to 13 per cent.; and for violent crime from 69 per cent. to 47 per cent. Those figures are not manufactured in Conservative central office. They are the Home Office figures produced in July this year.
	We have not heard an answer to any of the six questions posed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. We did not hear what the Home Secretary will do about the physical security of our borders or the burgeoning supply of heroin from Afghanistan. Will he introduce an amnesty? We heard nothing. Will he take measures to stop postal and internet supply of guns? Again, no answer. Will he provide the extra police—not community support officers—that Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester are crying out for? The answer to those questions is apparently that he does not have an answer.
	I have been reading some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister when he occupied the position currently graced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The right hon. Gentleman now blames the '60s for disorder in Britain, but when he was shadow Home Secretary he inveighed against the then Tory Government who, he said,
	"will not take any blame or responsibility but puts it on the 1960s or the trendy liberal establishment—anywhere but on the Government, who have been in power and have had a chance to do something about it. That is what people dislike about the Government. What people dislike about the Government more than anything else is that . . . they do not have the guts to take any responsibility . . . for the situation that they created."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 38.]
	That is what they have done. Labour has been in power for seven and a half years—seven and a half years of rising crime. For seven and a half years, Labour has had the chance in government to put those things right. Instead, we have had seven and a half years of Labour failure. That is the real record for which the Labour Government now stand condemned.

Hazel Blears: We have had an excellent debate, which has highlighted serious issues about guns and drugs and other problems that beset our communities. However, I may have made an error at Home Office questions, when I welcomed the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) to the Front Bench. Ear plugs would have been welcome tonight, and I may need them for his future performances.
	I shall try to bring some sanity to our debate. It is right that we consider these important matters, particularly in view of the tragic events in Nottingham, Hackney and other parts of the country. The thoughts of everyone in the House are with the families and the friends of people struck by those events. However, it is also important to get the facts right and set our debate in context. I am saddened by the Opposition's attempt to paint the country as crime ridden and to whip up fear of crime among decent, law-abiding citizens. I am also saddened by their failure to acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made over the past few years. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, the Government have a positive record in this area, and I am delighted to put it before the House. Let us get some facts into the debate and get away from the high-flown rhetoric that characterised the contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
	It is an incontrovertible fact that police numbers have increased by more than 12,000 since 1997. It is also an incontrovertible fact that when the Tories were in power, despite their saying that they wanted to recruit an extra 5,000 police officers, they managed to reduce the number of police officers on the street by 1,100. The Opposition often say that they do not like national targets or direction from the centre. They think that the Home Office is interfering when it tries to drive policies through, but they must examine their own record. They put extra money into the police service, but they managed to reduce the number of police officers, which is a pretty inefficient way of operating. Today, there are 4,000 community support officers, who spend 70 per cent. of their time patrolling the streets. They are building relationships with the community and working with schools and hospitals. Again, it is an incontrovertible fact that there were not any community support officers under the Tories.

Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and distress at the way in which the Opposition demean hard-working community support officers, who are doing such a good job in our constituencies?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is quite right. In a debate in Westminster Hall last Tuesday, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) unfortunately described CSOs as "two-thirds police officers". Any CSO described in such terms by his Member of Parliament would feel let down.
	I have given the facts on police numbers. We have heard a lot about the British crime survey, which Mr. Richard Garside, the director of the Crime and Society Foundation said in a report provided
	"a far more accurate picture of the crimes it measures than . . . police figures."
	The survey gives the following facts—burglary is down by 42 per cent., which means that 500,000 fewer people are being burgled than under the Tories; vehicle crime is down by 40 per cent., which means that there are 1 million fewer victims than under the Tories; and violence is down by 26 per cent., which means that 380,000 fewer people are subject to violence than under the Tories. In half of all recorded violent crime there is no injury, and half of that crime is fuelled by alcohol, which is why there was such a brilliant campaign against alcohol misuse over the summer.
	I shall give the House some more facts. In 2001–02, gun crime was, I accept, a very serious problem, and increased by 35 per cent. The following year, it was up by just 3 per cent., as we began to get a grip on it; and in the past year, 2003–04, it was up by just 1 per cent. I would not for a moment suggest that it is not a serious or significant crime, but the number of homicides in which firearms are involved has gone down slightly and the number of robberies with firearms has gone down by 13 per cent. Members who spoke on the issue, including my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), made the point that we need to engage communities so that we can fight this scourge together.
	Let us have some facts about drugs: 3,000 people went into drug treatment between June and August this year, up nearly 100 per cent. Fact: when the Tories left office, there were fewer than 100,000 treatment places. They never regarded treatment as a priority. It was bottom of the food chain as far as they were concerned. The Government have put nearly £500 million into drug treatment and making sure we break the cycle between drug addiction and crime. We are now seizing £1 million a week from criminal assets and recycling those funds back into the communities to make sure that we are fighting crime.
	The final figures that I shall give this evening—I could go on with figures all evening, but I do not want to do that—are an important set of statistics relating to the fear of crime. For the first time all the figures around fear of crime are beginning to come down. Does not that say something about why the Opposition tabled the motion today and engaged in scaremongering? People's fear of burglary, vehicle crime, violent crime and antisocial behaviour is down from 21 per cent. to just 16 per cent. in the past 18 months—a pretty good result for our determined policies to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour.
	We had a depressing contribution from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). He mentioned several areas of concern. He spoke about drugs and residential rehabilitation, which has been an obsession of the Tory party, but there was no mention of what happens when people come out of residential rehabilitation. Do we put them back into the same communities? What we have done with our drugs intervention programme is not just get people into treatment, but provide them with education, training, alternative housing and support in their communities to make sure that they do not go straight back into the arms of the dealer—a well thought through, sensible, thoughtful, practical solution that appears to be alien to the Opposition.

Nick Hawkins: The Government's flagship policy was drug treatment and testing orders. The latest figures show that 80 per cent. of all those sentenced to those orders reoffend. Does not that show that what the hon. Lady is saying is nonsense? She is living in a dream land and the British public do not believe a word of it.

Hazel Blears: Not at all; it is the hon. Gentleman who lives in fantasy-land, but we will leave his fantasy island policies for the moment. The figures on drug treatment and testing orders are pretty early figures. Previously, before we had drug treatment and testing orders, there was no intervention. If the hon. Gentleman was in touch with the real world, he would know that the kind of people who are sentenced to drug treatment and testing orders lead some of the most chaotic lifestyles that could ever be imagined. He ought to recognise that the very early results show 20 per cent. success.
	The second area that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned was prison places to lock up more people. Again, he did not deal with the question of what happens when people come out of prison. Those are simple headline policies, not thought through and not sensible. He did not speak about the persistent offender strategy that we are developing, which will prevent people from becoming persistent offenders. We will catch and convict those who are and we will resettle and rehabilitate people who come out of our prisons. He did not refer to the fact that we have a higher number of drug treatments going on in our Prison Service than we have ever had. There are about 57,000 detox treatments going on in prison, 44,000 CARATs—counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare—and 4,000 rehabilitation places. These are sensible, practical policies. I am sorry that the contribution from the right hon. Gentleman was full of headlines today and incoherence tomorrow. It illustrates for me the bankruptcy of the Tory party.
	I shall try to deal with as many of the issues that hon. Members raised as I can. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) mentioned the sale of guns on the internet. I am pleased to be able to tell him that Operation Bembridge was mounted this year, the largest-ever operation consisting of co-ordinated raids of items bought on the internet. It led to more than 100 arrests and hundreds of illegal weapons being seized, together with hand grenades, Semtex, anti-personnel machine guns and machine pistols. That kind of concentrated operation is going on. I was delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Serious Organised Crime Agency. He said that he was warming to fixed penalties. Goodness me, he will be reviewing his policy on antisocial behaviour next, and we will welcome the Liberal Democrats to the fold.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made a moving speech and expressed the views of his community extremely well. The fact that he said his community would be standing together was important. We will be sending our support and visiting in the next few weeks. We will look at a range of Home Office policies and at how we can help to support those communities so that they become more stable and more safe, and better places for people to live and work in. I pay tribute to him for his contribution, and also to other Nottingham Members for trying to ensure that that happens.
	I shall gloss over the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I was surprised that he did not want to take into account the views of local people. He did not think that information technology worked, but I say to him that, with regard to DNA, automatic number plate recognition and case and custody programmes, I think that he is living in the world of 1940 rather than the modern day policing world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made an excellent contribution, as she usually does. Her work in her area is tremendous. I was delighted to visit the area recently and see the bobbies on the beat project in the new deal for communities area. The dispersal orders have now been used 70 times in the alcohol misuse enforcement campaign, and we have got some extremely good results. The powers to close crack houses have been used 100 times, and we have closed 100 crack houses in Hackney using the powers 11 times there.
	The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) made some important points about the tragic murder of Flo Seccombe. I am happy to say that I shall look into the matter and I shall certainly write to him. I know that the case has caused a lot of concern locally, and it is a very important matter. That lady was very vulnerable indeed in those circumstances.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) made an excellent contribution. It was a breath of fresh air; it was refreshing and grounded in reality. He talked about the fact that crime was down and about the difficulties associated with buying guns on the internet. I hope that Operation Bembridge will help to reassure him.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) spent an extremely entertaining evening with his police. I am glad that he saw for himself the problems of binge drinking; I hope that he did not indulge. He also brought to our attention issues about stop and search. Some 75 per cent. of knives seized by the Met were found through stop and search, so it is an important power. He is right that we have more to do on detection rates, and forensics and science are very important.
	I am sorry that I was not present to listen to the contribution of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I was delighted that he said that he had a very effective police force. He called for more specialised officers for Nottingham. I appreciate the pressures that exist, but we must ensure that we take action across the piece in the area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) made an excellent contribution. Crime is down in his area, and waiting times for methadone prescribing are down from 16 weeks in 2001 to just five weeks now. That is a significant advance, but we again have more to do.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) talked about young people on intensive supervision programmes. He said that half those programmes had been completed successfully. I am delighted; again, the kind of people that go on ISPs lead very chaotic lifestyles, and we are beginning to get a grip. He also said that people do not want effective community sentences. Yes they do; people in communities are supporting the work that we are doing on drug intervention. His contribution was very disappointing—he had no ideas or policies, and no proposals to make. There were simply empty and depressing complaints and a litany of empty ideas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made a very helpful contribution in which she brought to our attention the shadow of gun crime in her constituency. She also highlighted the point that although gun crime is a serious issue, it is very small in comparison with what happens in New York, Chicago and other parts of America. She pointed out that young men are increasingly going out with guns as part of a style culture. We need to ensure that that does not happen in future.
	The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about rural crime and deployment and raised the issue of probation. An extra 1,800 probation officers are now in the service. Clearly, we try to direct our resources to the areas of highest need. Where places are suffering repeat victimisation, such as in some of our poorest communities, it is right that they get resources.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talked about zero tolerance of antisocial behaviour and low-level crime. I am delighted that she supports our proposals to tackle antisocial behaviour, but I am very disappointed that her police force has got only one antisocial behaviour order. If ASBOs were so difficult to obtain, we would not have 2,455 nationally. I have 50 in my constituency.
	At the Tory party conference in Bournemouth, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made much of his 10 words on policy. I have 10 words—

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	—
	The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 162.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the record falls in crime achieved by this Government since 1997, recognising that the chances of becoming a victim of crime are now at their lowest level since records began and that gun crime fatalities are falling; recognises that these achievements are the result of record numbers of police officers on the streets, reinforced for the first time by Community Support Officers; welcomes the Government's achievements in reducing anti-social behaviour which has blighted the lives of too many of the most vulnerable people; and supports the Government's continuing programme of action to tackle crime, including the recruitment of 25,000 Community Support Officers and wardens, the provision of extra prison capacity and tougher penalties for those who break the law.

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003 (Programming of Bills)]
	That the Order of 12th October 2004 (Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words '21st October 2004' of the words '26th October 2004'.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Ombudsman (Extension of Remit) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Roads (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th September, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Industrial Policy for An Enlarged Europe

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8875/04, Commission Communication entitled Fostering Structural Change: an Industrial Policy for an Enlarged Europe; and supports the actions proposed by the Commission to facilitate the process of structural change, namely better lawmaking, better exploitation of synergies between different Community policies impacting on competitiveness and analysis of the specific needs of various sectors; but believes that such analysis should concentrate on sectors with potential for growth.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,

Employment Tribunals

That the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1861), dated 19th July 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Committees

Ordered,

Public Accounts

That Ruth Kelly be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Stephen Timms be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

MOBILE PHONE MASTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Paul Truswell: Major concerns have arisen in my constituency—as in many others—about the siting of mobile phone masts. In the past four years alone, constituents have contacted me about more than 60 applications, half of which have been refused or withdrawn, so unacceptable were they. We have had applications for masts on the roof of a day centre for people with learning disabilities and for masts feet from people's homes, and a major proposal for a church tower split a community apart. As a result of those experiences, I became a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on mobile communications and I am now privileged to be the group's secretary.
	In May, the group conducted a two-day hearing into planning procedures relating to mobile phone masts. We did not feel that we had the expertise to adjudicate on health issues, but there are still several inescapable references to them in our report. We believe that the perceived risk and fear arising from health concerns can and should be reduced by the adoption of consultation methods that involve communities and others much more. Our report, containing 19 recommendations, was published in July.

Brian White: Following that report, we met the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was very positive and welcomed many of the recommendations. Many of them could be delivered without legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should implement the non-legislative recommendations as soon as possible?

Paul Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I concur with his conclusions.
	The purpose of this debate is to elicit a response to our report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I intend to conduct a whistle-stop tour of the recommendations, leaving my hon. Friend the Minister ample time to respond in full. The report is a rounded package of recommendations, designed to improve confidence in the planning process relating to mobile phone masts. Our first, and perhaps major recommendation, is that permitted development rights should be revoked, in line with the proposal made by Sir William Stewart in the independent expert group report on mobile phones in 2000.
	We believe that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995—or GPDO—is outdated. The 56-day deadline is arbitrary and difficult for planning authorities to meet, especially given the number and controversial nature of many applications. It is difficult for communities to engage in the process. Indeed, one of the latest objections in my constituency was on Knott lane in Rawdon, where considerable concern was expressed about the time scale and the notifications. As the process is not seen as transparent and open, many of the concerns regarding health are increased by the perceived inadequacy of the permitted development process. The GPDO is difficult for all parties to understand and apply consistently. We therefore believe that its provisions in respect of telecoms should be comprehensively reviewed and revised using plain English. Indeed, I apologise that so much of this speech and the report itself has to use jargon that is somewhat removed from plain English.
	Our report also highlights the inconsistencies in planning approaches across the UK. We feel that the ODPM should take the lead in a comparative review of relevant law and practice across the UK to ensure consistent best practice and a common approach where that would be beneficial. Many of us are aware that emergency provisions can be abused. I have a case in my constituency in which a mast was erected on Carlisle road in Pudsey, causing great concern, and was not removed for more than a year. The all-party group recommends that, in revising the GPDO, the Government investigate ways in which emergency provisions can prevail, but with much more stringent regulations about what constitutes an emergency and with suitable penalties for operators who do not comply with those procedures. In addition, we recommend that temporary consent should be reviewed.
	There is a strong view that communities are not properly consulted in the process of development of mobile telecoms, as I suggested when I mentioned permitted development rights. We were attracted to the practice of Basingstoke and Deane council of holding a telecommunications inquiry, which produced guidance on three stages of consultation: roll out, pre-application and when prior approval or permission had been applied for—more jargon.
	The provision for earlier involvement of interested parties, in particular the public, led us to recommend that a revised planning policy guidance note 8—the planning guidance relating to the issue—should specify much more clearly the arrangements for public consultation during annual roll-out discussions to encourage local planning authorities, in conjunction with operators, to publicise the strategic plans for mobile phone networks.
	As a further aid to public involvement in scrutiny we also recommend that under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local planning authorities should be obliged to include a telecommunications plan as a local development document, or LDD, in their local development scheme, or LDS—even more jargon. Later in the report we recommend that mobile phone operators adopt common digital mapping techniques to enable a national map of the location of mobile phone masts and base stations to be produced on an ordnance survey basis. That would help to inform discussions on the overall siting of masts.
	The often controversial and time-consuming nature of mast applications can demand extensive work from planning officers for which the fee levels are grossly inadequate. We were attracted by proposals for notification of neighbours within 200 m of an application site and for councils to have dedicated planning sub-committees, developing real expertise on mast applications. Even a city the size of Leeds has limited expertise in dealing with such applications.
	Extending involvement in the ways suggested carries a financial cost. It is therefore our view that a revised PPG8 should include further guidance on pre-application discussions with a view to allowing local planning authorities to charge for them. We also believe that consultation and advertisement arrangements should be widened to ensure that everyone who might be affected by a proposal is well informed. A further important recommendation is that fees should be increased to reflect the resource demands on local authorities in their consideration of applications and that more guidance should be published by the Secretary of State on where charges can be made for pre-application discussions.
	In the midst of concerns about the proximity to people's homes and workplaces of proposed masts, we must also consider the visual impact, and our report contains two specific recommendations, which I shall not go into in detail. Mast sharing is often seen as an underexplored option. We appreciate that it can cut two ways. It reduces the number of sites required on the one hand, but it can lead to higher emissions where masts are concentrated on a particular site. Indeed, there was uproar recently in my constituency about plans to attach additional antennae to a shop on the busy New Road Side in Horsforth. The group has recommended that further research should be carried out into mast and site sharing to better inform the Government in their formulation of policy guidance and also local authorities in their dealings with applications for masts.
	As I said, the group did not think that it could adjudicate on health considerations, which are obviously at the forefront of many people's minds. The perceived risk and fear arising out of health concerns could be reduced by the adoption of consultation methods that are aimed at involving communities much more closely and at an earlier stage. Until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects from the use of mobile phone technology becomes available, the precautionary approach should be adopted in line with Sir William Stewart's recommendation in his report. That should be reflected in a revised PPG8.
	I mentioned the idea of planning committees developing special expertise. We also think that the Government should actively seek methods of providing technical advice to local planning authorities. We suggested that those might include a dedicated adviser employed by the Government, a Government-sponsored website offering independent information, and the identification of sources of funding for local authorities to share experts and resources for specific training for local authority planning officers dealing with mobile phone mast applications.
	There are other recommendations, of which my hon. Friend the Minister is no doubt aware having assiduously read the report, which I am sure he has done. They call for more rigorous procedures to enable locations to be on optimum sites and for further research to be carried out to identify best practice in other European countries for possible application in the UK. We called for a formal joint body to be established by the Government and the industry, with representation from local authorities and the regulator, to build confidence between all parties, especially the community, on the range of issues that our report covered.
	Our final recommendation acknowledges that changes to legislation can take some time to implement, but to restore confidence in the planning system we recommend that a ministerial statement be made as soon as possible to add strength to the requirements for consultation on pre-development and pre-application proposals for telecommunications installations. I shall conclude on that point and hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use this opportunity to make just such a statement.

Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on using this opportunity to secure a debate on the subject of planning procedures, mobile phone base stations and many other things besides. The topic is clearly important to him, both as the representative of his constituents—he described some of the difficulties they had been experiencing—and as the secretary of the all-party group on mobile communications. He has a reputation for carrying out that post with great effectiveness.
	As evidenced by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the topic is of interest to many Members, in part due to the widespread public interest in the subject. Indeed, the Government recognise that in some cases that public interest takes the form of grave concern, especially about the siting of such developments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey described.
	The topic has been and remains high on the Government's agenda. We constantly review and assess our policies against the latest developments, and strive to maintain balance between public demand for mobile services and the need to protect the environment and manage public health concerns. I was struck by my hon. Friend's concern about the jargon in the language used in the planning system, which can sometimes act as a barrier to people's understanding of the process that they are trying to influence. It is, therefore, a barrier to their having effective influence. That is a constant problem not only in the planning system; we all try to ensure that our constituents can understand how such systems work so that they can have appropriate influence on them.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whom he and others met recently. As he knows, the Government welcomed the publication of the all-party group's report of its "parliamentary hearing" into mobile phones, base stations and planning. I hope that in the meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and subsequently, we have shown that we recognise the tremendous work that was done in preparing the report and by those who presented written and oral evidence to the all-party group. It was clear that everyone who participated in the process had a genuine interest in improving the planning for telecommunications developments. Of course, the group was able to draw on the expert knowledge and advice, as well as the practical experience, of those participating in the hearing process.
	The Government have taken receipt of the report and are giving its recommendations careful consideration. The report will help to inform the decisions that will be necessary in taking forward Government policy on planning for telecommunications.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on covering a huge amount of territory in a short time, as well as taking an intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to make a detailed response to each of the recommendations the group made—[Interruption.] I hear cries of "Shame" from the Back Benches. I shall try to address some of the key recommendations and set out the Government's current position, and deal with some of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised this evening.
	First, let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and other hon. Members that careful consideration was given to the current planning arrangements before they were introduced. My hon. Friend mentioned the Stewart report on mobile phones and health. The report, published in 2000, recommended that telecommunication development be subject to the normal planning process to improve local consultation. As he said, the all-party group's report recommends that the Government now adopt that recommendation.
	The Government considered the Stewart group's recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation took place. As a result, in August 2001, we significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We specifically increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications—forgive me, but I need to use the specific words used in the system—from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days and strengthened public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. We also increased the fee from £35 to £190, to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation. The fee has now risen to £220. I may say a bit more about that later. Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as for applications for planning permission.
	We believe that we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission. There is concern about the fact that, under the prior approval procedures, consent is deemed to be granted if no decision has been made after 56 days—a point that my hon. Friend raises. However, those arrangements are necessary to ensure that development is not delayed. It has been suggested to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the 56-day period should be extended because notification is sometimes received by the operator on the 57th day, or that there should be a seven-day period at the end of 56 days that still counts as a valid notification period.
	I know that this will not be to my hon. Friend's liking, but we do not think that extending the 56-day period would resolve the problem; it would only defer it. We have already made the switch from the two periods to the uniform 56 days. The problem of notification being received on the day after the end of the period, or whatever, would remain the same even if we extended the time period; regrettably, some local planning authorities would still miss the deadline occasionally. The discipline of the prior approval arrangements is still needed because many authorities fail to meet their best value targets for determining planning applications.
	There are telecommunications developments under the permitted development rights conferred by the GPDO. I emphasise that those installations are, by definition, the smallest and most discreet developments. The Government do not want to restrict those rights because local planning authorities need to focus their attention on the developments that will have the greatest impact. Furthermore, network operators estimate that only about 15 per cent. of installations are allowed under those permitted development rights.
	The current arrangements have the effect of encouraging network operators to install smaller apparatus on existing buildings and structures, wherever possible, thus minimising the environmental impact of such developments. However, there is still a need to ensure that people are properly consulted. Simply because those small developments do not need planning permission does not mean that there is no public consultation. The code of best practice that was produced jointly by local and central Government and the mobile phone industry clearly says that every potential site is rated using the traffic light model. My hon. Friend did not raise that issue, but we must realise that it is an important part of the system. The traffic light model determines the level of public consultation that will be required if the site is selected for the installation. The Government believe, therefore, that limiting the rights of network operators to install telecommunications equipment would be detrimental to their ability to meet public demand for mobile services. More important, it would not materially increase or improve consultation with local communities.
	Of course, requiring full planning permission for all telecommunications developments would have significant consequences for the planning system. Removing permitted development rights for telecommunications development would increase the amount of casework for local planning authorities at a time when they are struggling to find the resources to handle a growing volume of planning applications. Furthermore, these planning cases would be more likely to end up as planning appeals, either because the local planning authority had failed to determine the application in reasonable time or because an application had been refused.
	The statistics from the Planning Inspectorate suggest that a disproportionate number of telecommunications applications are refused at local level. Approximately two thirds of telecommunications cases are approved on appeal compared to the usual rate of one third for all cases. Of course, the Government recognise why so many applications are refused at a local level, and I will return to this in a moment. However, as Members may be aware, the Planning Inspectorate has had to deal with a greatly increased work load and we do not want add to the burden. The Government believe therefore that removing the permitted development arrangements would significantly add to the burden of the planning system to the detriment of all applications and appeals.
	I appreciate that one of the reasons that the all-party group's report recommended that the GPDO be reviewed was to ensure that it was easier to understand and interpret. Members may be aware that, on 10 September this year, the ODPM published a research study on permitted development rights from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Ltd. This is the first phase of the wide-ranging review of the GPDO that my hon. Friend requested.
	The report from the study also concluded that the GPDO could be clearer in respect of part 24, which relates to the permitted development rights for licensed communications code system operators. The Government accept this criticism of the order, and we will be looking to clarify part 24 through the review process. We are working towards undertaking a public consultation exercise early next year, and I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all interested parties to comment at that stage. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that that is an important new development.
	As I said a few moments ago, the Government appreciate why so many applications are refused at a local level. We recognise the public concern that leads to campaigns against telecommunication developments. Concern about the siting and design of such developments is fuelled by public concern about the perceived health risks associated with this technology. We agree with the group's view—it has been reiterated tonight—that
	"the perceived risk and fear arising out of health concerns could be reduced by the adoption of consultation methods which are aimed at involving communities and others more."
	The Government have repeatedly stated that we are particularly sympathetic to full consultation with local people. We have also said that we will look carefully at the group's recommendations to see what more can be done in this area. We are doing this and, interestingly given the timing of this debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will make a statement about this shortly. I regret that I cannot say anything tonight, but watch this space.
	I said that the Government prepared the code of best practice, which includes the traffic light model, to ensure the delivery of significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between operators, local authorities and local people. The mobile network operators and local planning authorities are well aware of the importance the Government attach to the observance of the best practice guidance set out in the code. Ministers in the ODPM regularly meet the Mobile Operators Association to discuss a range of issues, including operators' progress in meeting their commitments to improved local consultation.
	My hon. Friend may know that the mobile network operators have commissioned a second independent review of their ten commitments, which will demonstrate quantitatively how their operations and procedures align with the requirements of the code. To complement that research, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is commissioning a study to assess the impact that the code has had more widely since its introduction, the way in which local authorities have implemented the code and the way in which the public has perceived its operation. Perhaps some of the questions that were raised about jargon and accessibility will form part of that discussion.
	I hope that the study will provide the Government with evidence on whether the code has been effective and whether there are any areas of weakness that need to be addressed. In the light of that evidence, the Government will consider whether changes to the code would be appropriate. Clearly, my hon. Friend and the all-party group will contribute to that process.
	The work is being overseen by the electronic communications working group, which is chaired by ODPM officials and on which there are representatives from local and central Government as well as the industry. It also includes officials from the devolved Administrations—I think that that matter was also raised in the all-party group report. The aims of the group include developing working relationships among Government Departments, local authorities and operators to improve planning procedures continuously. We believe that the work of the group will go a considerable way towards addressing recommendations 3 and 18 of the all-party group's report.
	I want to return to the question of planning fees. On 16 September, the Government issued a consultation document entitled "Changes to the System of Planning Fees in England". The document sets out the Government's proposal to raise the fee for installing a telecommunications mast from £220 to £240. However, it is widely acknowledged that such applications to a local planning authority, under both the prior approval and planning permission procedures, result in a disproportionate amount of work for planning officers, as I said earlier. The Government thus consider that there might be justification for charging a still higher fee. I know that the all-party group also supports that view and that the Local Government Association gave evidence to the group to that effect. Network operators also recognised the resource problem in local authorities and responded openly to the group's suggestion that the industry should consider the extent to which it would be reasonable for the fee for applications to fund the shortfall.
	In the light of that, we have invited views on whether the work undertaken by local planning authorities on telecommunications mast applications is sufficiently different from the work involved in processing standard applications to justify an increased fee. The review of fees is also considering whether to regulate the process for charging for pre-application discussions, which was another of the all-party group's concerns. The consultation period on fees closes on 9 December, and I would encourage anybody with relevant comments or evidence to respond to the document. The new fees regime will come into force on 1 April 2005.
	My hon. Friend raised questions about mast sharing. We agree that the number of telecommunications masts should be kept at a minimum level that is compatible with effective network operation. I assure him that Government policy is firmly to encourage mast sharing when appropriate. The conditions attached to the powers granted to individual mobile operators by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which are incorporated in their operating licences, include a requirement for an operator to investigate mast sharing before trying to put up any new mast. It is quite right to stress that it is important for good use to be made of existing masts and other structures when installing new antennae.
	My hon. Friend also raised questions about sites and design. There are several different design solutions for masts, and we want to ensure that they are used creatively and innovatively so that masts that look like trees or street furniture may be developed. We can, and want to, do more on that subject.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned technical advice. The Government are making available an additional £425 million to local planning authorities over the next three years to help to improve planning performance. The authorities are free to spend the money as they choose. We would welcome the idea of them buying access collectively to telecommunications expertise if that would be more cost-effective.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.